Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:RFD
)
XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 0 30 30
TfD 0 0 0 7 7
MfD 0 0 1 0 1
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 4 21 25
AfD 0 0 0 1 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,
    requested move
    .
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be 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:

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?


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

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". (
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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 the article texts 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
    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

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. ClimategateClimatic 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
    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

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.
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

March 19

Thalassic (album)

Needless disambiguation, let alone the wrong target. The

primary topic. dannymusiceditor oops 01:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

2023 Mother's Day photograph by Catherine, Princess of Wales

Suggesting Delete as an implausible search term. The photograph was taken in 2024, not 2023, and is of, not by, Catherine, Princess of Wales. The redirect was likely created as a result of an editor's !vote to rename Where is Kate? to the redirect in the AfD discussion, evidently mistaking the year and preposition. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 01:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DFTS

Rarely, if ever, referred to that way. Googling, the most common topic is Defense Freight Transportation Services which we don't have an article about, and I don't see any use of this abbreviation elsewhere Wikipedia. Could be a typo of DFTD, since they're one off on a QWERTY keyboard, but I don't think it's worth keeping a typo of an abbreviation. Rusalkii (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbersexual

Currently points to a busted anchor, not sure where to redirect it to maybe Hipster (contemporary subculture) or 2010s_in_fashionblindlynx 00:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

List of 2025 Indian Premier League personnel changes

WP:TOOSOON, not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Geydar Ilkhamovich Aliyev

Was at this title for about a day. This is a Russianization of the name which as far as I can tell is not used anywhere; Google gives zero hits for this form. I have been able to find one instance of "Heydar Ilkhamovich", used by a commenter on a newspaper article. Rusalkii (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England Island

Not mentioned in page, Google results seem to be for a mix of New England Island and various other islands in England, not the island of Great Britain. Rusalkii (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting the of the heads of state of German-speaking countries

Extra "the" in unlikely places. Rusalkii (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Azorean regional election

Was at this title for a while, so I am somewhat reluctant to recommend deletion, but it'll be confusing as soon as the election takes place. There isn't an obvious umbrella/disambig page for Azorean elections. Rusalkii (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Brain Research Unit

The Cognitive Brain Research Unit is a unit at the University of Helsinki. The current target is the unit's founder, who also directed it from 1991-2006. Not much is said about the unit at the current target, so I'm not sure if it will be satisfactory for people looking for it. However, I don't see it mentioned on University of Helsinki, either. I'm curious what the best target for this could be. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, I haven't been able to find a mention anywhere else on Wikipedia and a sentence seems better than nothing. Rusalkii (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November (upcoming film)

The film is no longer upcoming, and nothing links here. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Type 1 machine gun

There seem to be several machine guns referred to this way (Type 1 heavy machine gun, Ho-103 machine gun) . I'd disambig the page, but the current redirect target was at this name since 2007 so there's a lot of history, and it gets hundreds of page views a month presumably all looking for the old name. Looking for opinions on whether to keep the current target or disambiguate, especially from someone familiar with this area. Rusalkii (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabification wouldn't delete the history the way deletion would. Just... edit the page, lol. Especially since the current target should logically show up as one of the DAB page's entries. It'd likely be a good idea, though, to look through the What Links Here page and edit anything specifically looking for the Type 98/Type 1 to point directly there instead of to what's going to be a DAB. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format string

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to

Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Format specifiers

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to

Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Placeholder (Computing)

Nickps (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Lord Cameron (minister)

There is now another Lord Cameron who is a government minister (

Lord Cameron of Lochiel). While the one who is Foreign Secretary remains the most likely search target, this redirect now seems less appropriate. I suggest we retarget it to Lord Cameron (disambiguation) or delete it altogether. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Live at Montreux 1981

Mike Oldfield is not the only artist to have a release titled "Live at Montreux 1981". Numerous artists have the same titled release including James Brown , Stray Cats, David Sanborn, Maggie Bell and Midnight Flyer, Yellowjackets (band) and more. --Picard's Facepalm Made It So Engage! 14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format string

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn by nominator

Bay State Savings Bank

Not mentioned at target. This is a bank which could potentially be notable. I suggest deletion per

Talkback) 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Shewtambar

Unlikely typo. — kashmīrī TALK 13:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree this is an unlikely typo for the article name, however it is a plausible misspelling or typo of "Shwetambara" (one of the alternative spellings listed in the lead). It gets lots of google hits as an exact term, so it may even be a correct alternative spellin/transliteration itself. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is trivial to find usage of this spelling: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Shewtambar%22&ia=web Why did you even think it is an unlikely typo, @Kashmiri:? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 13:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VOG-L04 11.0.0.170(C792E10R1P3)

This code is not mentioned at the target article. Apparently is only linked from commons, but its existence is entirely confusing as the only component in this redirect that is present on the page for the phone's model is "VOG" (No 11.0., no C792, etc). The subsequent address, missing space and all, does not seem to be a likely search term or helpful redirect, generally speaking. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's a technical redirect so that the automatically generated links from images taken with my phone on Commons under "software used" work properly. The links work properly for most other phones, but since I use a North American Huawei (pretty rare these days), I wanted the link to work properly as well. Félix An (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've tagged it as a {{R from file metadata link}}, which explains the benefit of redirects of this nature. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I didn't even know that template existed! Félix An (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnie board

No mention of the word "burnie" at the target article. To that effect, there is only one mention of "burnie board" on Wikipedia, which is in the List of buildings designed by architect John Dalton, as the Burnie Board Residence and Administration Building. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the history of the camelcase redirect contains an external link [1] which explains the connection "A 1960s advert for Burnie Board – it appeared in an Australian magazine in 1963. [...] 'Burnie Board' is a type of hardboard or Masonite. The Burnie Paper Mill (1937–2010), Burnie, Tasmania, produced paper, high-grade sawn timber and sheet material like 'Burnie Board'" and multiple other web hits also back up that it was also a type of or similar to masonite, but everything seems to indicate it was a product only or primarily of the 1950s-60s so I would expect most reliable sources to be offline. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thryduulf's findings. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link.com

I wanted to test this, and it turns out that "link.com" is a separate website that is built by stripe. Stripe's own domain is "stripe.com" and already exists as a redirect. The target in question makes no mention of "Link" on its own, or "link.com" for that matter. The article does make a passing mention of Stripe's "Payment Link" portal, but having the url as a redirect when this portal is barely present at the article may be confusing. The citation in the Stripe article that discusses the payment link portal, does not mention link.com. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's now briefly mentioned in Stripe, Inc.#Other. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 18:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gelovani (disambiguation)

This page was leftover after I merged its contents to

G14 as a redirect ending in (disambiguation) that didn't redirect to a disambiguation or disambiguation-like page (which I guess it wasn't a redirect when I nominated it), and then a user removed it and redirected it to House of Gelovani. I still hold that it should be deleted, as the section Notable people with the surname is not large enough for the page to be considered as "performing a disambiguation-like function". AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjie the Bay State Beagle

No shred of a mention of this mascot anywhere at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stomp N' Holler

Not mentioned or alluded to at the target article in any capacity. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western physical culture

While it is true that this culture did exist in the west, it is not described as the "western physical culture" anywhere in the article, nor does the article have anything to do with this being a purely western phenomenon besides that it "originated in Germany, US and UK", while also covering the phenomena in Australia. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the countries you mentioned are considered Western countries. And calling something 'Western' doesn't mean that it has to only be found in the West, rather that its origin or character has some significant basis in the West. However, it is possible to retarget to Western sports if the current target is deemed unsatisfactory. I might also consider developing the redirect into a full article of its own. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the redirect 'Western physical culture' in place, but have created an article within that page. My primary vote would be to keep the article that I wrote within the page. GreekApple123 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article-ify as per GreekApple123.
Let's see where they're going with this one! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

~( 8^(I)

Furthermore, it does not seem like strings of characters such as this would be useful or helpful for readers on Wikipedia. This is not a likely search term, and the only information we have at the target list, for this topic, is "yes" (it exists) Utopes (talk / cont) 04:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The emoticon has been removed from the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me & Mrs. C

A piece of programming not mentioned at the target, no mention of "me and" or "me &" although there is some loose mentions around Wikipedia of this programming. Not currently suitable as a redirect here though, and it doesn't look like there's any other substantial mentions that could draw a target, from what I'm seeing here. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law 1129

The number "1129" does not appear anywhere at the target article. Attaching this as a law number, without any context as to what the law that has the number #1129, is currently unhelpful to readers as a confusing redirect. Searching for "Law 1129" reveals many laws with this number, not related to conscription in Cuba. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenemos

This misspelling of Greek temenos, created as a duplicate article a few minutes before redirection and merger by its author, makes it difficult to find mentions of the Spanish word tenemos 'we have' using search. Such mentions include the Wiktionary page and those in Present tense#Portuguese and Spanish present indicative tense, Spanish conjugation#tener, 'to have (possession)' (and in the lead of that article), and Spanish grammar#Cleft sentences, as well as partial title matches, quotes, and citations in various other articles.

I think the Spanish conjugation article makes the most sense as a target, though {{Wiktionary redirect}} would also make sense. PleaseStand (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons you mention about difficulty in search. I don't see the need for this redirect. - Dyork (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - should absolutely NOT go to a very common verb form in another language. Anyone trying "to find mentions of the Spanish word tenemos 'we have' using search" on Wikipedia is using the wrong website! Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, shouldn't you be voting "keep"? Because this type of spelling error should be fairly common, and readers might be baffled not to find anything when typing it. A temenos is a precinct, especially a sacred precinct, a fanum. It makes sense to have redirects from its likely misspellings, unlike various forms of Spanish verbs. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling of temenos. Conjugations of Spanish verbs should not preclude the creation of redirects for likely misspellings in English Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per editor P Aculeius. Just categorized the redirect and left a hatnote about the dicdef.
    ed. put'er there 11:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per P Aculeius. -
    Talkback) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Osborn Corners, Ohio

A location by the name of "Osborn Corners" does not seem to pop up at this page, nor any place at all (much less one in Ohio). Utopes (talk / cont) 05:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikidata item for Osborn Corners in this township, Osborn Corners (Q122546244). However, I'm not sure what you mean by "pop up"; that it's not mentioned on the Bath Township page, or something else. Kk.urban (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. While it's true that Osborn Corners doesn't show up in Wikipedia except for said township, a few google searches do turn up Osborn Corners being a real location in Ohio-- including Google Maps, which notably has a pin for it as a 7 minute drive from its pin for Bath Township. I'd say that redirecting Osborn Corners to where Bath Township is tracks-- what we probably need is a reference to Osborn Corners added to the Bath Township page, not the redirect deleted. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should probably be mentioned at the target since as noted it does show up on Google Maps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A mention has not yet been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Americanas

There are 41 different topics named Americana at the disambiguation page, which this retail chain does not happen to be located on. Lojas Americanas is the only title that includes the "plural" version in the title, but it seems to me as if many of the singular pages can also be interpreted as a plural, which could possibly warrant a target-pull. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's clear the nominator has not done a full BEFORE here as every single hit on the first seven pages of my google search (I didn't look further) is related to the current target, which is referred to as just "Americanas" in the article (although this could be more explicit). The article also notes that the brand's website is americanas.com.br and the operating company is "Americanas SA". Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thryduulf. I'll be honest, I was about to recommend deletion before I read Thryduulf's comment, went "There's no way, that has to be some sort of Google-grabbing-local-data thing" (despite Thryduulf, upon further investigation, being British according to his user page), before I searched myself and got the exact same result of the first few results being nothing but Lojas Americanas.
    That said, adding a hatnote to Americana to the target wouldn't be a bad idea. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From where I'm from, in Brazil, there are stores that are simply titled "Americanas". Brazilians have come to refer to these stores using the term "Americanas" as a shorthand. For example, when talking about where to go shopping, we tend to say, "Let's go to Americanas," without specifically mentioning "Lojas." Cathodography (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Focus Team

"Focus team" is never mentioned at the target page, and the sparing mentions of "focus" and "team" are not in context of any sort of Focus Team. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've also gone ahead and bundled "Liberal Alliance Focus Team", which has even less mentions of "focus" or "team", i.e. zero mentions in any capacity. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm gonna just comment since I'm the one who created them but the reason i created the redirects is because it is a distinct description used for dozens of candidates fielded by those parties in the 1970s and 80s TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bimrad metro station

"Bimrad" is not mentioned at the target article; Bimrad metro is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Unhelpful for people that search this term to end up at a page without relevant content. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and mark as a {{
    Bhimrad metro station and {{R from misspelling}}. "Bimrad" is a very plausible misspelling of "Bhimrad", which is the name of a station listed in the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Sutorius junquilleus

A species name which used to be, but is no longer mentioned at the target article. Was changed without edit summaries in May 2020 to the title of this redirect; the editor that made these changes was later blocked after repeated warnings for a different situation. These silent changes were later reverted in 2023, due to no discussion of the change to begin with from 2020. The relationship to this name is still unclear, and unhelpful due to no mention. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Synonym of Neoboletus junquilleus ([5]), which doesn't have an article. As the target explains, junquilleus is similar to, and has been considered a synonym of pseudosulphureus, but is currently regarded as a distinct species. Plantdrew (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in agreement with Plantdrew. From what I see it has a number of synonyms, none of which are the target article. [6] [7] [8] Naming mushroom species and keeping track of those names seems very fraught. ― Synpath 21:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Food street

As noted by the page mover, the term "food street" can be highly ambiguous and exist all over the globe, evidenced from searching "food streets" on Wikipedia. Street food looks like the most suitable term out there, which branches off into Street food of Mumbai, Street food of Chennai, etc, although perhaps there is a difference between this and the multiple food streets, such as Gawalmandi Food Street or VV Puram Food Street, etc. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Food Street to the nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Street food since the concept of "food streets" seem to be explained there, though the top/lead section is not too clear regarding explaining that both concepts (food sold on streets, and the streets which the food is found) are present in the article. (The article may need a bit of a rewrite or some splitting into another article, but it seems at the present time, the concept as defined by the redirects is present in Street food.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodynamics of nanostructures

The redirect should be deleted. The name of the page was an error, it appears that an editor thought that Thermodynamics was short for Thermal dynamics which it is not. The page has been changed to the more appropriate title Thermal transport in nanostructures. The redirect is incorrect, as it is not on thermodynamics, so would take readers in the wrong direction. I cannot find an actual page on thermodynamics in nanostructures, so it should be removed for the moment. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now as an {{R from move}}, unless the phrase clashes with another topic. The article has used the former title for almost ten years and may become hard to find without the redirect. ― Synpath 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the old name is misleading -- that should matter most. The science clashes. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:32, 10 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    N.B., the redirect is comparable to having a redirect from "Star" "Satellite" to "Milky Way" -- misleading without rationale. Please check the article content. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how misleading the redirect really is. As far as I understand, the physics of thermal transport would be a subset of thermodynamics. If I'm hopelessly wrong there, then sure, it might be harmful enough to delete. Even then, I don't think that this is wholly unreasonable thing to be mistaken about (hence a useful redirect).
    Regardless, deleting the redirect would break several internal links, which are easy to fix, but one should do that ahead of deletion. External links might exist as well, but that's more difficult to assess. I'd say that the redirect should be left alone for a month or three to see if it becomes unused. If that is established then it may make sense to revisit deleting this, but it still seems
    WP:CHEAP to keep around. ― Synpath 00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Security & Privacy

Refers to the wrong journal (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/24756725)

b} 04:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

DhK

Seemingly unlikely for DhK to be more associated with Dhaka than with the DHK disambiguation. As far as I can tell, none of the pages there have a need to capitalize the K at the end. Granted, Dhk is a redirect to Dhaka, and DHk was created at the same time and seems more fine as a double capital in a three letter acronym. But going "capital lowercase capital" feels too specific to warrant one target, and is probably better pointed at the disambig page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as it turns out, the same person made all three so it's not like a long-term consensus, so I'm going to bundle them all here. DHK has a few other options for targeting, even if Dhaka is the biggest article on the page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater War

Is never called the "Greater War" at the target article. All uses of the word "greater" (all two of them) are not (neither) in the context of wars. Without context, this redirect could be seen as subjective and/or confusing. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reliable sources all seem to use this term to describe either WWI or conflicts (including WWI) in the first quarter of the 20th century, e.g. 1908-24 [9], 1914-24 [10], 1914-18 [11], 1914-18 [12], 1911-23 [13]. The first of those links is to a series of books (none cover the entire period) that might be notable, but even if it isn't there isn't a single article we have that would be the correct target for all of these meanings. Thryduulf (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have personally never seen or heard it called this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The entire reason we stopped referring to WW1 as the Great War was because WW2 matched it- not exceeded it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Sa'idAban ibn Taghlib ibn Rubah al-Kindi

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move page

Eomys orientalis

A particular species that is not mentioned at the stub of the genus it points to. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. However, I did see some potential references during my GSearch so I thought one can make a stub out of it. --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at target. It is not customary to have articles for fossil species, but it also isn't customary to create redirects for them. It would be better to make sure that the list of species in the genus article is up-to-date than to create redirects for species that aren't mentioned in the genus article.
    Eomys quercyi has some incoming links; Eomys orientalis does not. No other Eomys species have redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Idealwise separated

Not actually defined at target (but mentioned at Local criterion for flatness). 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yar Chally

Neither "Yar" nor "Chally" are mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Yar Chally" is the romanization of the city's Tatar name, Яр Чаллы, which is mentioned in the article. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 03:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, interesting. @WeaponizingArchitecture: It could be worthwhile to put the romanization somewhere next to such name to add context for people that click on/use this term, and why it targets the place that it does? If a mention is added I'd be good to withdraw this. ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 04:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was one added to the article a while ago next to the IPA transliteration, dunno what happened to it. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 04:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelfia (roman noble)

Incorrect spelling, capitalization, and grammar. Was at this page for a few minutes until moved. And come to think of it the page should probably be merged to Sarcophagus of Adelphia, since she's only known from that... Rusalkii (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as the capitalization is wrong and improbable to be searched for; but the spelling is correct—the Latin inscription is the source of the spelling, and if it's misspelled, then people might be expected to search under that spelling. I don't see any issue with the grammar, except insofar as "Roman" should be capitalized; but that's not a separate problem. I haven't looked into merging, but the argument seems reasonable, if the sarcophagus is her source of notability. This isn't the right place to discuss a merger, but you could just be bold and merge them if there's no obvious objection. That should only affect the target of a redirect, but the redirect should be properly capitalized if we're to take it as a plausible search term. P Aculeius (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Bridge of Words

This is a book anthology that does not appear, nor is it ever alluded to at the target translator's article. It's currently linked via a hatnote on the Bridge of Words article as the only incoming link to this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Höfler

I don't believe this person's name is ever spelled with the "ö", and they're American so this doesn't seem like a likely mistake from a language that does have it. Rusalkii (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, my search also confirms this conclusion. The redirect has zero lifetime pageviews as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human respect

For such a broad concept, it seems as if this search term would be for people looking for respect (with respect to humans), i.e. just the contents of Respect. Human respect does not seem more particularly associated with a non-profit in Sacramento than it would be with just, respect in the general sense. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment, since the redirect/page did not previously exist, and given
WP:CHEAP, i did not think there was much of a problem here. I created a new redirect though that uses the exact phrase that is associated with this particular group, "philosophy of human respect" as a new redirect. If that full phrase, which seems predominantly to be used by this group, is preferred, then I suppose we could delete "human respect" by itself. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with the WP:CHEAP aspect; a useful redirect that exists is always more preferred than a useful redirect that does not exist. Once a useful redirect exists, it'd be a waste to delete it per WP:CHEAP. However, as long as it exists, it's most beneficial to ensure that it leads to the most likely target for that title. "Human respect", in my eyes, seems to be a likely search term. Now that we have it, I feel like the most expectable location for this title would be the page for Respect as a general page for a general term, rather than at the Sacramento non-profit. If "human respect" is strongly correlated with the non-profit as opposed to "respect", a hatnote could be warranted then. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White International

The word "International" is not mentioned at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we tripped over each other nominating this one. My original deletion rationale: I don't believe the Russian emigres are commonly referred to in this way. Google gives mostly a couple different similarly named trucking companies which I don't believe we have pages for. This is linked twice, both in the context of a early 20th century political movement which I don't think is closely tied to Russian emigres and would need context on the target page in any case. Rusalkii (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Utopes and Rusalkii. Has this 'page gets simultaneously nominated by two editors' thing happened before? lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

The Sultanates of Lanao: Guardians of Moro Identity and Independence

"Guardians of Moro Identity and Independence" not remotely mentioned at the target page. This page was essentially a promotional essay with broken citations and copyvio problems that didn't last 10 minutes before getting tagged and later becoming a redirect by Mako001. I don't think there's anything salvageable in the history here, and as a redirect title it does not appear to be likely or suitable besides that. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Between Greetings

A potential program not listed at the list of programs. No mention of "Between Greetings" anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Spain

There are many different Spanish Revolutions described at Spanish Revolution; the term "Revolutionary Spain" only appears once outside of the citations, so it's unclear whether this particular term is associated with just the 1936 revolution, or if it is more generalized. Spain could have been described as in a "revolutionary state" during any of its revolutions. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not quite familiar with y'all's terminology ("retarget per nom") but I'm okay with redirecting it to the Spanish Revolution disambiguation page instead, makes more sense. AethyrX (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Regulation 2004

The European Union merger law does not seem to be referred to as "merger regulation 2004", as the full title (including 2004) does not appear at the target, although "merger regulation" does. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oz lab

The Australian labour law is never referred to as "oz labour" or "oz lab" at the target page. It's unlikely to be searched for using this highly-offhand term. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MT25i

"MT25i" not mentioned at the target. The letters "MT" are never said together, and the number "25" is not present anywhere at the page. This may be a model number, but it's unclear how useful of a redirect this is as the title is never mentioned as a synonym. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MT25i is the model number of Sony Xperia neo L. S03311251 (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

%d

%d is a format string specifier that is used by both

Nickps (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:REVERT

All other redirects such as

WP:REVERTING and all redirect to WP:Reverting but this one is the odd one out. For this one I consider changing the redirect name like the one I mention above because that one fits with the redirect more. This is supposed to redirect with a project-associated page and not a help guide.kleshkreikne. T 20:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Nhà Bè River

Not mentioned in target. I believe the Dong Nai (apologies for lack for diacritics) flows through Nha Be province, but I can't find any evidence that it is referred to that way. I don't read Vietnamese, so there may be important sources I'm missing. Rusalkii (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F angels

As far as I can tell, Engels isn't referred to this way anywhere and certainly not in the article. Google search gives a smattering of minor companies, social media accounts, and mistyped biblical references. Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, upon further consideration, this should be deleted per Rusalkii's search and the complete lack of this redirect ever being used really. If I may ask @Rusalkii, how did you find this redirect and decide to nominate it for deletion in the first place? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm
revewing new(ish) redirects. Rusalkii (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I was asking because this one was not that new, but I understand you said "new-ish"... the backlog is extremely deep right now from what I understand. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we're three months deep in redirects, just got to November 17th. Rusalkii (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sangrana

This event was the casus belli for the Battle of Amritsar. A relatively minor incident, with seemingly minimal casualties, does not need an entire Wikipedia article. We're better off including this article's content as the prelude for the events of the Battle of Amritsar. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:YESTRUTH

Target essay was userfied due to being contrary to consensus. It hence does not deserve a projectspace shortcut. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sex reassignment therapies

The term was already outdated and was replaced by

gender-affirming care - there are no links left to this, so it can be deleted. Raladic (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

November 9 1989

The redirect of a poorly formatted date to a particular event makes little sense, so

WP:R#DELETE #2 ("confusion") applies. For the few ones who can remember a date, but not the event, there is 9 November in German history. Викидим (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

This date is not simply 'poorly formatted'-- it's Americanly formatted! As the US was one of the two global superpowers pushing a side of the Cold War, one of the major events that marked the end of said conflict having a redirect written in this manner is far from surprising. That said, Retarget to 1989#November, which has not only a link to Fall of the Berlin Wall, but also a note that November 9th was when the 47th government of Turkey was formed. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
American date with month in the first place needs a comma. A proper format would be November 9, 1989. I have no objections against redirecting the correctly spelled November 9, 1989. Викидим (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that these are redirects, not articles. We don't need to worry about what's pretty and perfect when naming a redirect, because not always will the general public type in something that's pretty and perfect. Instead, we need to worry about what's plausible for the general public to type. A dropped comma is perfectly within plausibility. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled November 9, 1989.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gros Michel foreign names

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep (Nomination withdrawn).

Eastman Village

Eastman Village is not mentioned at the target article. The only mention of "Eastman" is in a link to the Kodak article. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to be a new housing estate on the site of a Kodak[14]. Maybe it should me covered in the target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has "a large industrial premises was built in 1890 by the American Eastman Kodak company in Wealdstone, and by 1965 there were over 100 buildings on a 55-acre site at Kodak Harrow, employing 5,500 people", which I believe is now Eastman Village. I would want a better source than what I have to actually add this to the article, though. Rusalkii (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western era

"Western era" not mentioned in the target article. The implication of "modern era", "modern history", and "modern times" from the article is that this is happening right now, and equivalent to western in usage. Was created by the creator of Post-Western era; that seems to be a better location to talk about the concept of a "western era", if any suffice. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT keep at current location. Referring to the modern era as the 'western era' is... extremely euro-centric??? Heck, with how pervasive Japanese and Chinese culture are right now, you could just as easily call the Modern era the "Eastern era" and be just as correct as if you called it the "Western era". Either delete, or retarget to somewhere else. I'm loathe to target it to ]
Might be a good idea to turn it into a disambiguation page, with the "Wild West era"-related page being one possible redirect. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City shooting

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect should be deleted mainly because as was said last time, shootings in Kansas City are frequent, including one literally today. The Super Bowl parade shooting IMO should just be merged into

WP:RECENTISM. 134.6.74.198 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I understand an RM is underway for this article, but that being said, I feel that that shouldn’t impact this given how this is not a suggested name (I don’t think) and there have been RMs for this article since the day it happened. --134.6.74.198 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it really be helpful to send readers looking for encyclopedic content, to an unfamiliar page such as a category? This would be a deviation from the norm of, say, Chicago shooting or Nashville shooting among multiple others. The category can be linked from the hypothetical DAB if it needs to. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this - we have an article on the exact event the significant majority of people are going to be looking for (the current target, yes it's recent but that doesn't mean it's not the primary topic) that has a hatnote to the event most other people are going to be looking for. Retargetting to a category that is much broader and which doesn't help people who don't know that the Kansas City massacre was a shooting is actively unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

Baby Zoomers

This article does not ever refer to Gen Z as "Baby Zoomers". While the name "zoomer" is certainly a play on the generation name of Baby Boomers, the incusion of "baby" here is unclear and suggests a baby-related topic, possibly Zoomer babies or young Zoomers, etc. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This also seems to be a TV mini series according to GSearch. --Lenticel (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given that zoomers (if meaning Gen Z) aren't babies anymore, this term is both misleading and implausible. Kk.urban (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This Forbes article mentions the term in the way which the creator intended ... the redirect refers to the subject in the target. However, since I'm not sure if this is enough to bypass potential
WP:NEO issues, I'm just "comment". Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Movimiento antiglobalización

This article is about a movement not necessarily associated with the Spanish language. There doesn't seem to be a need for a Spanish redirect in this case. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ]

Kannada Films Databse

"Databse" = unlikely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unlikely misspelling and no affinity for missing this vowel in an otherwise common word that isn't prone to typos. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Surikiña

I don't think Taypi Chaka Quta and Lake Surikiña are the same thing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative keep. Plug "Lake Surikiña" into Google Maps, and you get Taypi Chaka Quta. (Noteably, if you instead plug Surikiña River in-- which is a redlink 'See Also' on the Taypi Chaka Quta page-- you get Rio Surikiña, a river less than 20 miles away from the lake.) Seems to me like a 'two names, one location' thing- which is exactly what a redirect is for. (Although the alternate name should really be discussed in the article. Perhaps if someone can track down where it came from and why?) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unable to find any information about this lake. Jay 💬 19:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 20:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find info about this lake. I even tried Lago Surikiña and still came up with nothing. --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled metro stations

Should have been deleted under

WP:CSD G8. Created in obvious error. Misspelling of "Jyotirindra Nath Nandi metro station" and "Yuva Bharati Krirangan metro station" respectively. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 07:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent metro line and stations in Kolkata

Kolkata Metro often uses names of cultural leaders, social workers, and freedom fighters in naming its metro stations. These 8 metro stations, however, neither exist nor would you find any reference about them on the web, except Wikipedia mirror sites. Many of these redirects had started as standalone articles, but they were fully unreferenced. These names were mentioned in the main Kolkata Metro article as far back as 2011 (later removed, but retained in templates), however, the only surviving reference from the time (archived) does not mention these names at all. It is very likely that these names were made up and had not actually been given to these metro stations.

Red Line did not ever exist on Kolkata Metro. Creator was deoablock-ed. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 07:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I personally see insufficient evidence being put forth for such a claim. The non-existence of sources in English does not imply that these stations do not exist, just that they are non-notable at present. Sohom (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Noahides

I am unsure what this group actually believes or if they in fact exist, but search results suggest something similar to Messianic Judaism and certainly not Anabaptism. Rusalkii (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep about 2 years ago I started research into Messianic Hebrews because I had also assumed that they were the same as Messianic Jews but it turned out that the Messianic Hebrews denounce Messianic Jews as a "Synagogue of Satan" and instead promote something called "Messianic Noahide Judaism". Upon research into that religion it turns out that it was founded along Anabaptist lines by Baptist Ministers in 2003 and that the modern day non-Messianic Noahide movement split from it in 2005. Since they are too small for their own article it seemed best to simple redirect it to the religion which it is based on at least until there is enough data to build a good article on the topic. Ioan.Church (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you happen to have any source on hand for that? Could be helpful to add a section to Anabaptism about it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only from what is published by the Messianic Noahide groups themselves which one can find when one does a Google search for "Messianic Noahide". The biggest group only has 2180 members and runs a YouTube channel. There are a handful of books which. ention Messianic Noahides only enough for a stub article to be written so I thought it would be best to redirect it rather than write a stub but if people want the redirect to be deleted then the best option is for the stub to be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioan.Church (talkcontribs) 23:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...In that case, I'd say that they aren't notable-- information published by the Noahides themselves do not count as reliable secondary sources. In this case, I support deletion. If you really do feel like they deserve a section or article, and can find enough sources to support it,
WP:BOLD. Although if I may add, 2k members doesn't seem notable enough for a youtube channel, much less a religious sect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

We should bare in mind that Anabaptists (with the exception of the Mennonites) are a collection of minority groups so 2000+ and a YouTube channel and website is notable considering the

Dunkards (who get more mention on Wikipedia) have only just over 1000 members and do not have their own website. Ioan.Church (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Eh, fair enough as to the numbers- a single person can be notable enough for Wikipedia, after all. What makes something notable is the sources, not the concept/number of people/ect, as per ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is misleading and confusing; the article for
    Messianic Noahide should be nominated for deletion as well (or incorporated into this discussion). Kind regards, AnupamTalk 16:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Ashraf Abdullah Ahsy

Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. GSearch says that there are materials to build a section about the prisoners within article. I do have to warn anyone who'll try though. The stories are quite dark.--Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore pre-BLAR revision. It even has an image of the prisoner and the dog during the interrogation. Although NorthBySouthBaranof's edit summary said "Mergify", I didn't find any merge done. Hence I have tagged it as {{R with history}}. Jay 💬 07:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Lich

Appears in the background for about a minute in one episode, has little use in navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a better target is found. The concept of a Lich shows up in more places than just Adventure Time, I'm certain that a 'Baby Lich' could crop up in a far more notable place than a quick sight gag in one episode of a show. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter (Extinct World)

The Extinct World has very little differences from the main universe, except that all of the characters died at one point. This has little use in navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:CRUFT. The fact that this just navigates to the entry on the non-Extinct World version of Gunter probably says everything here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Peppermint Butler (Black & White World)

The Black & White World appears for one episode as a gag. It has very little relevance to the franchise as a whole. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:CRUFT, just like Extinct World Gunter. I repeat-- the fact that this just navigates to the entry on the non-B&W World version of the character says everything here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Name, image, and likeness

I propose to retarget this to Personality rights. Name, image, and likeness are stock terms in reference to personality rights of all sorts of celebrities, far beyond student athletes. See, e.g., Monk v. N. Coast Brewing Co., Case No.17-cv-05015-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan 31, 2018), contesting use of "the name, image and likeness of Thelonious Monk"; Lucchese, Inc. v. John Wayne Enters., LLC, EP-17-CV-135-PRM (W.D. Tex. Jul 31, 2017), regarding "rights to famed actor John Wayne's name, image, and likeness"; Cousteau Soc'y, Inc. v. Cousteau, 498 F.Supp.3d 287 (D. Conn. 2020), regarding "use of Jacques-Yves Cousteau's name, image, and likeness", etc. BD2412 T 02:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPOP

Not mentioned in the target article. Without mention, someone may be using this redirect to try to look up a music-related topic, such as Electropop. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. There is also the "egalitarian price of proportionality (EPOP)" in Price of fairness and the "Elongin BC Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 associated Protein (EPOP)" in SKIDA1. BD2412 T 03:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per BD2412 --Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petersburg and Five Forks

Case of

WP:XY, retargeting to Siege of Petersburg where the Battle of Five Forks is described in a larger context would be an improvement, but the redirect could also simply refer to the places, making it more of a typical XY case meriting deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

March 15

Spergerrand

Not mentioned at target. In fact, I don't think the word "Spergerrand" is mentioned anywhere else on the Internet, other than a few wikipedia scrapers.(The spelling vaguely suggests to me that the word could(?) be a portmanteau of "Asperger's" and "random", but as for why one would use such a term to refer to Bitcoin is beyond me.) As far as I can tell, this word was coined for the very first time in the history of humankind when Your Lord and Master created this redirect way back in 2012. So, delete. Duckmather (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo International Airport

It could refer to any of the two international airports in Japan. Interstellarity (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NIAF

"NIAF" is not mentioned at the target, probably because it's not used commonly to mean "National Iraqi Armed Forces". It is used to mean National Italian American Foundation but we have no article about that. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viennoise

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect redirect and the target clear unclear. The article formerly at the target title, Vienne (department), does not mention the redirect either. The closest title match I could find, and the most common match via third-party search engines, is Viennoiserie, but I'm not sure if that is correct. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To Vienne (department) or Vienne, Isère?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 16:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per
    Viennois should almost certainly remain unchanged, but should not influence the decision on what to do with Viennoise. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just keep it as is then. --Joy (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosbif73's detailed explanations. Jay 💬 10:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one more try for consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dchicha

This redirect was created by means of an undiscussed move and reverted immediately after. However, it is a title that is not mentioned at the target page, and seemingly not a noteworthy alternative name. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add mention this does seem to be an alternative name for the target based on google searches, and noting both names seems particularly common in French-language sources (e.g. the lead at fr:Chorba frik states "Dchicha" (alternatively transliterated "tchicha") was the original name). Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this was created as essentially an administrative error, and is not mentioned on the target page, nor is a noteworthy alternative name... then let's just get rid of it. - Dyork (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does appear to be a noteworthy alternative name though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not been added yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no mention of such name in the target article (a variant of the Chorba), nor should there be. Tchicha refers to barley semolina, which is different from Frik (also known as Freekeh). M.Bitton (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Bathina

Actress mentioned at several pages, including

WP:REDYES. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Tyrone Brown (actor)

Actor mentioned at several pages beyond just the one, including at

WP:REDYES. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Doug Savan

This is seemingly an actor that played in this movie. Not synonymous with the movie by any means, and a red link seems to be more worthwhile for this purpose.

A reflection into November 2023, and wow. The history here is so egregious and I can't believe I didn't see this when the initial SPI was coming along. The creator of this redirect also created the page it points to. It was made by Crafterstar in draftspace, and was moved by their own sock into mainspace, which had earlier swindled a page mover perm out of process, and didn't leave a draftspace redirect when moving to main, for some reason. Hiding evidence that it was once a draft? Beyond me. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to add that my external searches for this actor turned up exclusively Doug Savant topics. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you meant September 2023 since that's when Crafterstar/Ebbedlila made the article and then sockpuppet-shoved it into mainspace. In any case, yeah, that's... that's pretty blatant sockpuppetry. ...In any case, though, they're pretty solidly blocked indefinitely, and the case shut. So, back on topic...
Delete as per nom and ]

Adam Faison

Adam Faison is mentioned on the pages of several films, including

WP:REDYES. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Starry Cat

Not mentioned at the target. Only bears one mention on Wikipedia, being an alternate name for Ricky Eat Acid, who is a part of this band. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ricky Eat Acid. If the user wanted info on the band from searching up one alternate name for one of the members, the band is mentioned in the article's opener. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Starry Cat was a bunch of Teen Suicide songs that were released as a standalone project to raise money for one of the band members. It may not be reflected in the article, but I can just make that change and reference it. It wouldn’t make sense to redirect to Ricky Eat Acid — the same members who participated on the Starry Cat album are the (now-past) band members listed on the Teen Suicide page.Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then... why is Starry Cat listed as one of Ricky Eat Acid's aliases on his page, if Starry Cat was an alias for the whole band?? Prolly should fix that one while you're at it, lol. Will change my vote to Keep after this change. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you edited it before I could fix my comment. It should be redirected to the page you specified. I realized Sam recorded Starry Cat alone, and although it was released for the benefit of a Teen Suicide member, he was the solo architect of the album. My apologies. Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. Keeping my own vote as Retarget, then. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative committee

Newly created redirect; using the word "legislative" in the title would seemingly imply something more specific than ending up at the general page for committees. While there is material about legislation at the target, from my point of view the more-specific operator in this title is "legislative", and due to this Legislature may be a more preferable target here. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public Accounts

There are many titles on Wikipedia that include "Public Accounts" in the title. In regards to having the same name,

Public accounting which currently redirects to Accountant. (Perhaps Accounting is more expected there, but not the topic). Utopes (talk / cont) 07:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Industrial labor, Labor, labour

These redirects should most likely be synchronized, but I'm not sure which target is the most proper. (Note:

Wage labor in a hatnote in that section.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 23:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd suggest a retarget/refine to Industrial society#Industrial labour, but that section is already flagged as in desperate need of sources, so might be a bad retarget. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 07:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manae

implausible misspelling(?) of its japanese name, manene. also unlikely speculation, as it was also named in gen 3. results only showed an in-game trainer and an anime production staff member with this name cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or weak retarget. The top results all relate to some non-notable tiktokers/youtubers, Inanidrilus manae - longstanding consensus has repeatedly been that redirects from specific names are not useful, so I don't support targetting it here; and Manaé Feleu, a French rugby union player but I can't find any evidence that she's commonly referred to by her first name alone (searching for Manae rugby -Feleu finds only places where her surname has been misspelled) so while I don't oppose retargetting it here it's not my first choice. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf's findings. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tantras

It makes no sense for the links tantra and tantras go to different articles. Retarget to tantra. JIP | Talk 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per nom. Given the proposed target already has a hatnote pointing to the current target, I don't see any sort of problem with this change. (Don't forget to mark as R from plural.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oop, also, forgot to add: Apparently, this was an R from page move. Still, feels like it makes more sense to point to the singular form. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since it does not seem to make sense to refer to the subject at Tantra in a plural form. (However, if a disambiguation page were to be created for "Tantra/Tantras", this redirect could be retargeted there.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to Tantra. Never mind, seems the English language defines the word "tantra", as well as the subject at Tantra, as a noun, so a plural is plausible. Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tantra per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambig for
    Tantras (Buddhism). Tantras in plural refers to Tantra texts, not the Tantra system.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superdome (Stadium)

I believe this to be an ambiguous term and, as such, it should be redirected to Superdome, where there are four stadiums that go by/have gone by this name. Bringing this here due to a dispute on the target with Abhiramakella. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Burswood Dome and the Sydney SuperDome are arenas, not stadiums. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This redirect should be kept to Caesars Superdome because that is the only stadium in which that was nicknamed "Superdome". Abhiramakella (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This in no way addresses why you capitalized the disambiguator unnecessarily, and then apparently created the redirect with proper disambiguation capitalization, Superdome (stadium), about a month later. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization errors happen often. Just because a page name has an incorrect way of capitalization does not mean that it should not be redirected to a page. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our search function automagically detects capitalization differences, and without this redirect, the search function would treat a query for "Superdome (Stadium)" as if it were a query for "Superdome (stadium)" and redirect appropriately. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using incorrect subject capitalization on disambiguators can be problematic, considering that means the incorrectly-capitalized title can be linked (which is bad in the case of disambiguators since it doesn't hint to the editor that a correction needs to be made to the title), and it can obscure other functionalities in Wikipedia, such as assessing page views of a redirects' usage. I think
WP:RDAB to accommodate this, but it sure is leading me that direction.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I think with the exception of the fact redirects not including the word "disambiguation" in the title don't interfere with disambiguation link fixes the same principals apply. In the case of
501(c)(3) is an example or what would not be an RDAB redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe those examples should be included in RDAB, as examples of what NOT to delete. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 and Lunamann: Our search function automagically detects capitalization differences this is only true for some methods of finding Wikipedia content and cannot be relied on. The points about making it harder to use some tools are irrelevant - firstly we should always prioritise readers over editors and that means we fix our tools to work with the encyclopaedia rather than "fixing" the encyclopaedia (usually when it's not actually broken) to work with our tools; secondly if it were relevant it would be a reason to delete every redirect that differs only in capitalisation. When plausible miscapitalisations occur outside parentheses we keep the redirect because we recognise how valuable they are to readers, when plausible miscapitalisations occur inside parentheses we should do the same because they are equally valuable to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because readers are unlikely to look for a title with incorrect capitalizations. Readers qualifying titles like Wikipedia will expect them to be the way we correctly title things.
WP:UNNATURAL notes i.e. an error specific to Wikipedia titling conventions that would likely not be arrived at naturally by readers, thereby adding to the implausibility. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Readers do look for titles with incorrect capitalisations - that's why we have Category:Redirects from miscapitalizations and nobody has ever provided any evidence that they distinguish between words inside and outside of parentheses. The fact that these redirects keep getting created is yet more evidence that people do arrive here naturally and so do benefit from their existence. Also note that what you quote is referring to things like missing parentheses not capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RDAB makes reference to "(Disambiguation)". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RDAB is an essay expressing opinions that reflect very varying levels of consensus for it's disparate points. On this point it is harmfully wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...One more place where
WP:COSTLY is itself costly, huh? I've already written a counterargument piece regarding WP:PANDORA lol, am waiting on an opportunity to use it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the point is that there is a limit to redirects being cheap and creating them for incorrectly capitalized qualifiers crosses the line of not being useful while creating clutter since deleting them enables search to correct the capitalization and keeping/maintaining such redirects though not particularly costly is reduced by not having such redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaWins

Parody YouTube channel which seems to lack the secondary sources required to actually mention it in the article of the thing it's parodying. Talk:CinemaSins#CinemaWins? has some circular reasoning that we have to include a section about it because the redirect exists. I suggest deleting the redirect. Belbury (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- both the redirect AND the mention- unless someone can find secondary sources. If secondary sources are found, happily keep. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i found a pair of top however many lists that mention cinemawins, and nothing else
one from hidden remote, and another from study breaks. i'm not sure either of them could be considered reliable, but i guess it's proof that the channel exists cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on sources to substantiate a mention?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpachi

"Kanpachi" is not mentioned on the target page. I tried to verify this myself and got very conflicting results about whether this is the correct target. Kanpachi is definitely a Seriola, but is it this Seriola? I don't know how to evaluate which of these sources are reliable and would appreciate input from someone who does. Wikispecies agrees that this is the correct target, but of course, that's user-generated. Kanpachi is a Japanese word and in katakana is カンパチ, if this helps anyone. asilvering (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate/ The Japanese Wikipedia article ja:カンパチ is about Seriola dumerili (greater amberjack), but says (translated by Google) "S. rivoliana is very similar to this species and is sometimes confused with this species." Searching FishBase for the common name "kanpachi" only returns S. dumerili.
However, searching Google for "kanpachi" returns pages that mention the scientific name
Seriola rivoliana
(some calling it "Hawaiian kampachi", others just calling it "kanpachi"). And pages that don't mention a scientific name often make it clear that they are referring to a fish that is farmed (not wild-caught) in Hawaii (i.e. Seriola rivoliana). From what I'm seeing from Google, I think "kanpachi", in English, refers to S. rivoliana more often than S. dumerili.
Common names for fish eaten as seafood often refer to multiple species. The US FDA says that Lutjanus campechanus is the only species that can be marketed as "red snapper", but there is zero enforcement and I regularly see fish labelled as red snapper with a country of origin well outside the range of L. campechanus. Plantdrew (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added Kampachi, which is an alternative romanisation of the same Japanese word, pointing to the same target. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fishbase has Kanpachi as the Japanese common name for Seriola dumerili and Hirenaga-kanpachi (longfin kanpachi) as the Japanese common name for Seriola rivoliana. While we can't use Wikipedia as a source for material in articles, the fact that editors at the Japanese Wikipedia have Kanpachi at Seriola dumerili suggests it is the primary topic. I think the redirect as is or disambiguation can both be supported, but if the article doesn't mention kanpachi then we should disambiguate. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote or Dabify, as per Plantdrew.-- i.e. Kanpachi redirects here. For the species referred to as Hirenaga-kanpachi, see Longfin yellowtail. (Can one put a reference in a hatnote?) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Ukraine

no mention on target page. I have no idea what this means, tried a quick google, nothing immediately obvious. Redirect should be deleted unless someone can add supporting content at Ukrainians in Kuban. asilvering (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's based on a weird historic name and subsequent wonky translation of 'Malynovyi Klyn' see Klyn. Sorry it seems that i forgot to get rid of the pipe on that page when i made the redirect—blindlynx 17:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming Ukrainians in Kuban to Malynovyi Klyn in line with other Klyn pages might be a solution—blindlynx 18:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the nom's concern, for some reason, this redirect made me think of Raspberry Pi, and that's not right. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on blindlynx's suggestion? Klyn has similar instances.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Blindlynx's suggestion. Seems correct to me? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Website previously known as Twitter

Requesting deletion for unencyclopedic search terms that are unlikely to be frequently sought after or helpful as most readers looking for Twitter would just search for that and go from there, plus it is still largely called Twitter on the site and by many media and news outlets. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per "no one refers to it as x". aside from elon and
organization 13
on a more serious note, i think the "previously" would require that the target article not be named "twitter" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't require readers to know what our article is titled before they can read it, indeed that's the point of redirects like this. "no one refers to it as x" would be a valid argument against moving the article but is completely irrelevant here - rather it's a reason why this redirect is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serves no practical purpose. Almost anyone would simply type in "Twitter" or "X", not this sentence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 19:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless, not a Pandora's box as the titling of "website previously known as twitter" might even be more of a popular name in the modern landscape than "X" is, which is hard to say for any other "former name" of anything. People who know it's not Twitter anymore can very plausibly search for the subject in this way. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, search strings, not redirect titles. We already have properly titled
    X, formerly known as Twitter. If the argument is that readers may not know the new name of twitter, they will go to Twitter first anyway. But if the target was X (and not Twitter), I could consider a weak keep. Jay 💬 07:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

IAR in order to close the subpage. No prior relists with 6 !votes delete and 5 !votes keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Idioprothoraca

Terms that are only linked from Sociality as their only mentions on Wikipedia, and neither are mentioned at their respective targets. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the fact it was only used for the taxonomic families with redlinks. I don't really care that much about my enwiki articles, as most of them were made for redlink fixing. I didn't do much research on the names too. So, Delete. RiggedMint (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These were proposed as clades that include more than their current targets (Idioprothoraca is
    Dermaptera). These clade names don't seem to be accepted by anybody other than the person (Nikita Kluge) who named them, and he has a idiosyncratic approach to nomenclature (he uses Saltatoria for what everybody else calls Orthoptera). The clade names nominated here were linked in a previous version of the Neoptera article, but that article no longer follows Kluge. Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Peach Tree

WP:DIFFCAPS variant for a shortened version of "Peach Tree War" (that is only used once throughout the article). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I will mention, this redirect seems to have been created as a mistake when moving
Peach Tree War to Peach War, and apparently not an intentional pointage here. But, figured I'd bring this here to discuss the diffcaps redirect that was created as a result. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete as per nom. This isn't necessary, and if left, might generate quite a bit of
WP:SURPRISE for anyone who was simply wanting an article on peach trees. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record, I am not opposed to instead retargeting to Peach. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would have been created when I accidentally moved Peach Tree War to Peach Tree. Immediately reverted this move then moved Peach Tree War to Peach War. Peach War is the more common usage, although a few secondary sources use Peach Tree War. Griffin's Sword (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Approach

Not a topic mentioned at the target article. The only time the word "approach" is ever said at the target is in the sentence: "New approach tracks have also been built." Appears to possibly be a general topic, without any context at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete my search results are overwhelmed by street names in England. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland Quadrant

No mention of "Rutland" or "Quadrant" at the target article. The only mention that "Rutland Quadrant" has on Wikipedia is within a table on Route 1 (Hong Kong), not wikilinked. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ho King Toi

Topic is not covered at the target article, no mentions of the subject, nor anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahrang

"Sahrang" has no mention at the target article, and the three mentions it has on Wikipedia are within the same citation used three times, not related to Iran. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back when the redirect was created, the article did list that "sahrang" (Persian for 'tricolor') was an alternate name for the flag. This was changed in January of this year, and now simply states that Tricolor (not the Persian word, the English word, which is a little odd to me considering this is literally Iran, aka Persia, we're talking about) is the alternate name of the flag. Gonna attempt to flag down the editor who made that change, maybe they have some input here... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5:-)

An emoticon not mentioned at the target, and no longer mentioned at List of emoticons either. The five is supposed to indicate Elvis Presley's haircut, presumably. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elvi5 Pre5ley has left the building, this should too. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty darn cute to see in this day and age. Delete 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 20:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanaians in Sweden

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted

Hoothi

Delete. The initial target was

Houthi. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 01:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

March 14

Sayyid Muhammad

"Sayyid" (and other spellings) is an honorific; "Muhammad" (and other spellings) is a very common name. There are dozens of people who might be referred to as Sayyid Muhammad and this redirect has no one good target. Note Sayyid Mohammad, Sayed Mohammad are red. I suggest delete to enable Search to work uninhibited. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario, CA

Once again, it should be retargeted to Ontario. It seems like common sense here. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget – I admit that I'm from Ontario and maybe biased, but literally every piece of mail uses Ontario, CA as an abbreviation. The province is definitely the primary topic over the American city. I'm okay with the disambiguation option as well, but I think it's a disservice to readers to assume they're looking for the place in California. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I doubt you, but I'm surprised by the statement that "literally every piece of mail uses Ontario, CA as an abbreviation." In the US, I would never include ", US" at the end of a domestic address, and I never see the country name or abbreviation on domestic mail I receive. If I were mailing to someone in Canada, I would write out the word "CANADA" in full. Just curious. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: To fact check your above statement that literally every piece of mail uses Ontario, CA as an abbreviation, Canada Post's addressing guidelines do not use "CA". Therefore, I can reasonably conclude that your statement is false. Most mail would tend to follow what formatting the Post recommends. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not every Canadian does it, then. But they'd understand what you mean by it, at the very least because it is incredibly common to see Ontario, CA on mail and in mailing addresses, regardless of what Canada Post officially suggests. I'm going to be stepping away from this conversation going forward because I've said my piece and this is honestly making me angry because it's a
sky is blue level conclusion around here. I think the very fact that this discussion keeps happening is proof that Ontario, CA is not an unambiguous reference to California. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If it's as common as you claim, then it should be easy to provide examples, no? I'm really trying to find examples on my end: WikiHow shows CANADA on a separate line (no CA). Here's a Reddit thread where a few users give examples of Canadian addresses, and none of them include "CA". Here's a source showing three different acceptable formats, none of which include "CA". etc. etc. I really don't mean to upset you,
but when a claim is challenged you really ought to be able to back it up. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's 5 examples from a bit of Googling from mobile, could find more on PC but not got the time right now: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
It's fine to disagree, but it's common place for Canadians to see "Ontario, CA", regularly. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation). CA is Canada's two letter country code and I think the province would be the expected result for the 15 million Canadians that live in Ontario. On a lot of websites you actually only select two letters when selecting your country or they'll only display the two letters and a Canadian flag. The province is clearly the primary topic given that it's not disambiguated. But the city would still be an expected result for some, which is why I'm okay with disambiguate. The city feels like the third best target, behind the province then the disambiguation page. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since some people cannot seem to find instances where "Ontario, CA" is used to refer to the province, I've found 50 instances where it does:
Barrie, Ontario
  1. https://www.ubereats.com/ca/city/barrie-on
  2. https://saferspaces.ca/store/barrie-police/
  3. https://www.squash.org.au/club/view/Barrie-Athletic-Club
  4. https://www.barrietowtruckservice.com/roadside-assistance-barrie-ontario
  5. https://chatime.ca/locations/?location=Toronto,%20ON,%20Canada&radius=5
  6. https://wildwoodovens.com/portfolio/pizza-oven-barrie-ontario-ca/
  7. https://www.knothouse.ca/
  8. https://www.unbelievabowl.ca/ourstory.html
  9. https://www.propassportphoto.com/store7491/
  10. https://residential.torlys.com/store/barrie-carpet-hardwood/
  11. https://ca.trustpilot.com/review/liftow.com/location/barrie
  12. https://thrivespring.com/organizations/urbanpantrybarrie/
  13. https://ca.linkedin.com/company/barrietoday
Toronto, Ontario
  1. https://ca.linkedin.com/company/city-of-toronto÷
  2. https://www.americanexpress.com/en-tr/travel/discover/property-results/dt/4/d/Toronto,Ontario
  3. https://www.somethingelserecords.ca/our-lady-peace-live-at-the-el-mocambo-toronto-onta.html
  4. https://ca.linkedin.com/company/torontosmayor
  5. https://chystophersamuael.medium.com/panel-builder-in-toronto-ontario-ca-574df9fa0688
  6. https://www.applyboard.com/schools/toronto-metropolitan-university-formerly-ryerson-university
  7. https://www.discogs.com/release/27182877-Our-Lady-Peace-Live-At-The-El-Mocambo-Toronto-Ontario-CA
  8. https://globalbridge-edu.com/seneca-college-york-campus-toronto-ontario-ca/
  9. https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/wm193V1_Casa_Loma_Toronto_Ontario_CA
  10. https://allevents.in/toronto/aew-forbidden-door-live-on-ppv-toronto-ontario-ca/200024289853947
  11. https://www.locanto.ca/toronto/ID_6575961424/PLC-Programming-in-Toronto-Ontario-Ca.html
Ottawa, Ontario
  1. https://ca.linkedin.com/company/city-of-ottawa
  2. https://dominicanu.ca/
  3. https://ca.linkedin.com/company/us-embassy-ottawa
  4. https://ridewithgps.com/ambassador_routes/1802-perimeter-of-ottawa?lang=en
  5. https://actionnetwork.org/events/womens-march-ottowa-ontario-ca-httpbitly2hjhtu9-2?source=widget
  6. https://solarific.co/ca/ontario/ottawa
  7. https://www.employmentservice.sl.on.ca/fr/node/59
  8. https://www.styleseat.com/m/search/ottawa-ontario-ca
  9. https://www.ubereats.com/ca/store/healthy-planet-unit-b10-ottawa-ontario-ca-k2t-1b9/ESZ2c-E7UgKy3j3_XuIUBQ
  10. https://quicktask.com/featuredjobs/gazebo-assembly-ottawa-ontario-ca-3/
  11. https://chatime.ca/store/ottawa-somerset/
Hamilton, Ontario
  1. https://www.emedevents.com/organizer-profile/mcmaster-university
  2. https://www.linkedin.com/school/uwaterloo/
  3. https://www.crsautomotive.com/what-to-see-in-hamilton-ontario-canada/
  4. https://ca.linkedin.com/company/city-of-hamilton
  5. https://ca.linkedin.com/company/hamilton-family-health-team
  6. https://en.perto.com/ca/hamilton-6433/firstontario-concert-hall-63940/menopause-the-musical-2-cruising-through-the-change-10346291/
  7. https://chatime.ca/store/hamilton-downtown-hamilton/
  8. https://www.lgbtqandall.com/resources/clarity-restored-counselling-and-therapy-hamilton-ontario-ca/
  9. https://accsell.my-ubertor.com/Properties.php/Details/217
  10. https://www.emedevents.com/canada-medical-conferences/ontario/hamilton
  11. https://www.propassportphoto.com/store7366/
General references that seem to always use "Ontario, CA"
  • Expedia
  • WeatherBug
  • Ebird
  • Mappit
These, among many, many, other examples, are part of why it's a reasonable expectation for Canadians that this redirect would lead to the province. Sorry if formatting is bad and that it's just links, but I did this from mobile. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those aren't reliable sources, and while a lot of those links don't work or don't include "Ontario, CA" in any way, those that do match "Ontario, CA" when searching the page for that term are only doing so as part of the address specifying the city, none of those are referring to the province itself as "Ontario, CA", it's part of a larger address specifically referring to a city, and is never used on its own and never used to refer to the province, so that's not evidence that the redirect should point to the province when it's not used that way in reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone gets you 50 links that use "Ontario, CA" and you dismiss them as unreliable sources? It's the usage here that counts, not whether the link is a RS. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said in the comment above, the reliability of the sources was not the only issue, and indeed wasn't even the primary issue. Many of them don't even include the term, and none of them use this redirect's title "Ontario, CA" to refer to the province, not a single one. I checked each one. It is indeed the usage that counts and still no source, reliable or otherwise, has been provided that refers to the province as "Ontario, CA", the closest we get is partial matches in town-specific terms, like "Toronto, Ontario, CA", which is not the focus of this redirect while references to the city match the redirect term exactly and unambiguously. The data does not support the claim that the province is ever referred to using this redirect title, and the WikiNav data does not support the claim that readers are confused by the redirect's target. My intention was merely to point out the issue with, for example, some of sources listed not even including the term, but I think I'm past the point of commenting here too much so I'll leave it at that. - Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability is entirely irrelevant, I'm not using these as sources in articles. I'm demonstrating that "Ontario, CA", is something Canadians see regularly. They're contextually perfectly valid. I could actually post hundreds of more examples but I had thought 50 would be adequate to show that we do frequently see that formatting. Also, to be clear, you're incorrect about the links not working or not including "Ontario, CA". If you ctrl+F you'll find at least one usage on every one of those links. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. There doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic between California and Canada with about equal numbers of people in the discussions expecting each target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, per Thryduulf above. The two-letter initialism "CA" can be a postal code for California or an abbreviation for Canada, and both are equally plausible in different contexts. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with retargeting to the dab page as a second choice). Most anyone looking for the Canadian province is just going to search for plain "Ontario", which is of course the PTOPIC for the plain name. But with the ", CA", the standard postal address for the city in California? It should point to the city in California. There's already a hatnote pointing to Ontario, for anyone who is confused enough to search for it this way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my second choice for a dab retarget. On second thought, this makes everyone click through twice, which isn't great. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CA is the standard postal address for the country of Canada, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mailing addresses would be disambiguated to the city level, e.g. "Toronto, ON" or "Toronto, ON, Ca" or even "Toronto, Ontario, Ca" but it would not be "Ontario, CA" by itself. - Aoidh (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Addresses are often listed different ways. I'm on mobile right now, but looking at the top 5 LinkedIn pages of Ontario cities by population, they all include "Ontario" instead of "ON" and "CA" instead of "Canada" at the end of the address. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nothing has changed since the last few discussions, and there's certainly no evidence that there has been any shift in usage. While CA sometimes refers to Canada in certain contexts, and Ontario is a province in Canada, the exact phrase "Ontario, CA" itself is used in reliable sources to refer to the city in California, not the province in Canada. Both now and the last time this was discussed last year I could not find any instances of "Ontario, CA" being used to refer to the Canadian province, but if such instances do exist they are by far an exception. To change the redirect target to suggest that "Ontario, CA" is used to refer to the Canadian province would be inaccurate and misleading and does not reflect usage in reliable sources. Usage in sources show that the Californian city is the clear and unambiguous primary topic for this exact phrase. - Aoidh (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "They are by far the exception" – Try searching for city name, Ontario, CA. I just did it with my own city and several others, you'll find thousands of examples. This type of format is why there would be such a familiarity and assumption by Canadians that "Ontario, CA" is associated with the province. It's also the ISO 2-letter country code for Canada and, as someone from the province, I get a lot of mail with "city name, Ontario, CA" on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a proposal for any redirect related to "[city name], Ontario, CA" any more than it is about the phrase "Ontario" itself, which of course the province would be the primary topic for. Each redirect stands on its own merits, and if the argument is that the redirect should target the province, then there should be evidence that "Ontario, CA" refers to the province rather than being included in a string related to a city. Throughout now four RfDs nobody has been able to provide a single instance of "Ontario, CA" being used to refer to the province, therefore then the city in California is the primary topic for this redirect and the current target is the valid one, and the hatnote at the top more than adequately addresses any edge cases where there may be confusion due to related terms from partial matches in mailing addresses. I can't find any instance of "Ontario, CA" referring to the province itself; when reliable sources use "Ontario, CA" they are referring to the city, and the redirect currently does and should continue to reflect that demonstrated usage. - Aoidh (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You won't find "Ontario, CA" because everybody includes more than that in their addresses. It's about the expected result when you search a term. In this case, Canadians who have regularly seen these types of addresses would naturally, and quite reasonably, assume that the version without a city would be referring to the province. The number of people who are aware of the town of Ontario is significantly dwarfed by those who see and use "Ontario, CA" every day while referring to the province. Not to mention international folks who would assume, based on the consistent 2-letter usage of "CA" for Canada, that Ontario, CA, would be referring to the province. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that assumption is not backed by any evidence whatsoever of even a single instance, whereas usage for the city unambiguously and overwhelmingly is, and that theoretical confusion is already addressed by the hatnote, alleviating any concern such confusion would bring while still accurately redirecting to what reliable sources mean when they use the term "Ontario, CA". Also it was very quick to find international sources that use CA to refer to California, so the assumption that international readers would assume CA=Canada is not reflected by sources either. Reliable sources should be used over
    bludgeon the discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    What do you believe the purpose of a redirect is? I believe it's to redirect people to the expected result. In this case, it's ridiculous to draw a conclusion that Canadians who see "Ontario, CA" regularly as part of larger addresses should somehow not associate that with the province after essentially being trained to do so. As such, the expected result, for myself and a large number of people, is the province. That's why the dab page makes the most sense, if not the province itself. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is to redirect people to the expected result. How though do we determine what result is expected? Given that not a single reliable source, even Canadian ones, use this term for the province, that's an unlikely edge case barring evidence to the contrary, and for that edge case there is a hatnote. Canadians (being ~2% of English speakers) possibly confusing the meaning of Ontario, CA (and that confusion is not reflected by sourcing whatsoever) is not an issue due to the hat note and is not cause to change the redirect target without evidence that it's a more likely target, which there isn't any. By actual redirect clicks, WikiNav shows it's not something people are being overly confused by, especially when looking at how people are arriving at Ontario. - Aoidh (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your wikilink about the redirect being not "what comes to mind" supports the province being the target, actually. Per the example given at that page:
    What first comes to your mind when you hear the word Java? It may be coffee or a programming language, but the primary topic belongs to the island with over 150 million people living on it.
    Ontario is a province with 15 million people, the American city has a population of 175,000 and is likely not what the average reader typing "Ontario, CA" is looking for. You cite just one newspaper article using the commonly used abbreviation for California as a state and while I'm sure you could find more, I could also find countless examples of CA being used in reference to Canada as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This redirect is not Ontario, nor is it CA, but very specifically "Ontario, CA" and every instance of the specific term "Ontario, CA" used to refer to something in reliable sources is only used to refer to the city in California, it's not even an issue of which is more commonly used, there's zero evidence of the province being referred to as "Ontario, CA". The city is the primary topic for this specific term as shown through sources. The point about what CA may mean internationally is that it's a grey area and assumptions shouldn't be made as to what people think when they see "CA", though not directly relevant as again this redirect is a very specific term and has only one meaning in reliable sources, and while it's not unreasonable to expect that there will be readers that expect a different result, that's an issue that already has a solution. - Aoidh (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm genuinely perplexed that you think that there's zero evidence out there for the province itself being referred to as Ontario, CA and that reliable sources only ever talk about the American city exclusively. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have reliable sources that refer to the province specifically as "Ontario, CA"? I can't find any, let alone enough that would demonstrate confusion. The city mailing address makes it part of a term that makes sense in that context, but that partial match is not the term itself and the province is never the subject of those addresses. - Aoidh (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I do so (I want to avoid showing numerous examples you might discount as irrelevant) can you elaborate a bit more on what exactly you mean about partial matches? Because neither is really the term itself, is it? Afterall, Ontario, CA is either an abbreviated version of

Ontario, Canada or Ontario, California and either are only ever really used in the context of directions/mailing addresses as far as I'm aware? Can you show me an example for the American city where that isn't the case? The newspaper article you linked doesn't use it in a different context or even mention the city of Ontario, it just uses the abbreviation for CA. I could easily demonstrate that CA is a standard abbreviation for the country of Canada used abroad, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

What I mean is that a source uses the exact phrase "Ontario, CA" to refer to something, for example the city itself, news organizations, the FAA (though an American entity) all use "Ontario, CA", the exact term being discussed here, to describe the city with no disambiguation used or needed. I can find no evidence that the same is true of the province itself, and per the WikiNav link above readers are not being confused by this either. - Aoidh (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Los Angeles Times is fair to use as an example here. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's perfectly reasonable as it demonstrates usage, but here's one that's not local at all. Do papers in the province of Ontario use "Ontario, CA" in the same way? - Aoidh (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Liliana, I think the Los Angeles example is fine. Thank you for finding sources that are more specific than the last one (I'll give some examples of what I mean when I'm less busy today). I wouldn't say that particular usage is really used by papers within Ontario to describe Ontario, so that is a different usage. I'm more inclined to disambiguate this now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on my lunch break so I haven't had time to dig much (will have more time later), but I did find this page in a book that expresses the concept that the exact term of Ontario, CA can indicate the province, as the international travel website Expedia assumes that this is what one is looking for if you use that exact phrase as a search term, with the American city being the very last option provided. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That example is expressing that given the query Ontario, CA there is a 99% chance that the user means Ontario, California, so giving Canadian results first is not well-designed UI. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author's argument is that it isn't well designed UI but I think there's a reason Expedia uses it like that. Regardless, the author's answer is also in an American specific context. They state that if you ask any American, they'd be expecting the city, their location data indicated they were American, etc. It's easy enough to flip that argument around to apply to Canada: if you ask any Canadian they'd expect Ontario, CA to lead to the province. Hence why the incomplete disambiguation idea is probably the best one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the author argued that the UI is so bad that it would have had to have been designed by a robot, so I really don't think it's making the point you want it to make... Also, the second part of your reply is a
fallacy of the converse. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not a fallacy if it's genuinely true. Ask any Canadian what "Ontario, CA" means and they'll say the province. I've come to the conclusion that the disambiguation idea is the best one because of Thryduulf's rationale, it's reasonable for people to expect either of these results. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to DAB page as per Thryduulf. CA can easily stand for either Canada or California, meaning that CA is quite useless as a disambiguator. Since we can't tell for certain which page the user actually wants to go to, we need to go to the DAB page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is getting contentious, I'm going to refine my take on this:
This is a very contentious and controversial topic, with accusations of americentrism, canada-centrism, et cetera. However, I'd like to point out three things:
  • One, that the only person who feels that it should be fully retargeted seems to be the nominator, and that everyone else seems to be either wanting to keep the existing target or retarget to the DAB.
  • Two, that retargeting to the DAB would be best as it offers up the least amount of harm and surprise in every scenario.
  • Three, that this doesn't even matter in the long run, as both targets already have hatnotes pointing to each other, with the province pointing to the DAB and the city pointing straight to the province.
My vote remains at retargeting to the DAB, but these hatnotes add another place we should add this-- to Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Redirects_and_disambiguation_pages. Y'all are getting this worked up over basically nothing. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page, per the reasoning that both uses are valid; we should of course try to eliminate links that use this redirect where possible. FWIW, the BBC and Guardian both use "Ontario, CA" to refer to the American city, not the Canadian province. SounderBruce 08:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page, as per Thryduulf and others. We shouldn't expect readers outside North America to be familiar with either state or country postal codes. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially per BDD's evidence in the 2015 discussion. This is a common format for American cities, but not for Canadian provinces. Perhaps most tellingly, the other Canadian redirects of this format (eg:
    Quebec, CA) were not created until during last year's RfD. If this were a common way to search for Canadian provinces, you would think someone in the last twenty years of Wikipedia would have thought to create it, but instead it took an RfD prompt to do so. Also, can anyone show evidence of "Ontario, CA" being used in prose to refer to the Canadian province? -- Tavix (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Upgrading to Strong Keep after doing a deep dive on the topic. In fact, I would go as far as to claim that the format "Ontario, CA" unambiguously refers to the California city. I have yet to find any evidence of the Canadian province referred to as "Ontario, CA" and I have tried. On the other hand, this redirect has 29(!) links that all refer to the California city. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming "Ontario, CA" always refers to the city in California is one of the most Americentrist takes I've ever read. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion I've reached after multiple hours researching the topic. If you have evidence showing "Ontario, CA" referring to the province, I'd love to see it. I'm always happy to change my opinion in the face of new evidence. -- Tavix (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I threw up 5 examples above that I found from a little bit of Googling via mobile. Canadians are absolutely trained to recognize "Ontario, CA", as referring to the province. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've stricken the above. -- Tavix (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation). This discussion has indicated that "CA" is not a clear identifier and can be interpreted as California or Canada. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation). The redirect is ambiguous. A searcher copy-pasting this portion of an address could be looking for either target. ― Synpath 22:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation) per above. I can't imagine I could explain it any differently than all these other comments, so I'll just leave it at "It could refer to both so it should go to somewhere that lists both". QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation): CA can be confused with California and being used as an abbreviation for Canada is not common in US sources. (My first thought on seeing this was "there's an Ontario in California?") StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation). I'm neither USAnian or Canadian and I have to say I hadn't even heard of Ontario in California, but after reading this discussion I think there are valid reasons for both the Canada and California places so it's best to retarget to the disambiguation page. JIP | Talk 08:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Polish farmer's protest

I suggest deleting it, because it's not grammatically correct redirection to an old name of this article. Karol739 (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Edit: I've made a typo, correct link for the redir is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Polish_farmer%27s_protest. Karol739 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both as a very plausible misspelling and a {{R from move}} (made less than 24 hours before this nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I completely agree with Thryduulf's reasoning. Kk.urban (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva suggestions

Per

WP:RDEL8 – the term is not used in the article itself and appears to be either an obscure synonym or a play on words. That said, I don't think this quite meets the "implausible misnomer" bar, so I'm starting a discussion here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a meme, often in the format "Geneva Convention? More like Geneva Suggestion", indicating that the one saying the phrase intends to commit war crimes. So, less an implausible misnomer, more a joke/meme redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That explains the orgin at least. Is there the possibility of adding content about the meme into the article? Or should it still be considered for deletion under criteria 8 (not being used in the article)? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
could just retarget to Geneva Conventions#New challenges :^) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 22:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can't find enough information about it to get a concrete source-- the only things most search results come up with are people using the meme, or information on the Geneva Conventions themselves. Not notable enough to include in the article, which means... we shouldn't have this redirect. Delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like something max0r would say. delete as just barely not vandalism, and also as not mentioned in the target, and also as not notable enough to be mentioned in the target, and also as plain ol' innacurate cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't expecting RfD to get me to binge Incorrect Summary lol. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a meme-derived redirect that is not mentioned in the target article and doesn't seem like a plausible search term since the meme already indicates the actual thing it's referencing. - Aoidh (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-This is a joke based redirect that would be utterly implausible for anybody genuinely interested in the Geneva Conventions to reach. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 11:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep, (possibly my most futile keep !vote of all time), the article can still be interpreted as, (albeit mandatory and highly enforced to avoid crimes against humanity), "suggestions". If Geneva Rules wasn't already its own topic, I think that'd be an acceptable redirect to Geneva Conventions as well. All results for this term are in relationship to the Geneva Conventions, even if only offshoots of the "suggestions" joke. For people that don't know what the conventions are actually called, and only are aware from the "suggestions" meme version, this may have a usecase. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, the "suggestions" meme does typically drop the actual name in the setup to the joke, i.e. how I typed it out in my first comment... my own delete !vote still stands. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Testicular ectomy

I can find very little to support the idea of "ectomy" as its own word- the only thing I can find is our sister site Wiktionary's definition: wikt:ectomy. Every other resource I can find treats 'ectomy' as a suffix, not its own word. This therefore seems like a very unlikely search term. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mouhammed Diop(footballer, born 2000)

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

Monkeyz and Dolphinz

Speaking of Petz, both of these redirects target a section that no longer exists. Notably, while the article also no longer mentions either of these by name, both refer to extant titles in the Petz series. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add: Redirects were made in 2010, both by the same author. The section they pointed to was then deleted in August 2013, due to being, quote, "unsourced commentary." 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and a quick part 2: I was going to notify the person who removed the section, but they seem to have left Wikipedia according to their talk page. With some rather angry words directed at ArbCom. Hm. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, as I wouldn't have remembered that I had created these even if I saw them listed. Though I admit these redirects appear to be rarely used, I think the best thing to do would be to copyedit the article and include the other titles to give a complete picture of the series. The Gameplay section includes Pigz and Bunnyz, so including the other two wouldn't be that out of place (though arguably they could all be moved to a better section that lists the games). I'm unclear why the article would only include what it calls the "Main series" games, but exclude others, particularly when the infobox lists titles that are listed no where else in the article. Based on the existence of
Catz: Your Computer Pet, which led to the other animals or games being considered commentary or extraneous. So essentially, I would !vote keep, but to also copyedit the page to expand on games in the series, though I don't want to make those edits while this discussion is inconclusive. —Ost (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record, my listing here is mostly due to the 'refined to nonexistent section' issue, and I agree with you that if they were added back to the article (which they should be), these redirects (...redirectz?) need to be kept and refined to wherever in the article they now show up. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, which may have been in response to my rather detailed reply. I made some edits to the page, including an Animals section, but you may have a better idea for what section should include the content. From what I saw when searching, there may not be a Pigz game, though the animals were in some later Dogz titles. —Ost (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Booking

This redirect should probably be deleted. "Central booking" is a generic term which can be and is used to refer to processing centers for arrestees in jurisdictions all over the United States. (I don't know if this applies to elsewhere in the English-speaking world). It certainly does not have a stronger association with Baltimore, Maryland than any other municipality, all of which have their own central booking. If this redirect isn't deleted, it should maybe be targeted to either the prison or arrest article. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate There also appears to be a song by
    Talkback) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

?D

Not mentioned at the target, nor at List of emoticons. Existed as a one sentence article, for one minute, by an editor with one edit, named Muk-one, before being tagged as CSD gee-one, before finally becoming the redirect it is today. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O)

Similarly to C), no version of "O)" or ":O)" exists at Emoticon nor List of emoticons. Unlike the technical variations with different punctuation such as hyphens and colons in title, those already have a strong correlation with emoticons. But in this case, with it being a letter followed by a punctuation mark, considering this as a letter might be safer than immediately assuming that "O)" is in reference to an unmentioned emoticon, even if the "o" might be seen as a nose sometimes. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C)

C) is not listed at either Emoticon or List of emoticons, nor are there any technical variations such as a hypothetical ":C)", if it existed. I'm not convinced that the letter C followed by a punctuation is unambiguously in reference to an emoticon, as there are several topics related to either C or C (disambiguation) that a parenthesis could be in reference to. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Import-blanktable

This template was merged to {{row hover highlight}} after Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Template:Import-blanktable. During the course of the merger, consensus was reached (discussion) to no longer support the class name used by this template as it was unintuitive (these templates work by enabling a css class to be used on a table). Therefore, I see this as a costly redirect given that the functionality previously provided by this template no longer works, and it is not a likely search term (did you guess that "import-blanktable" has anything to do with cursor highlights?). Nothing was actually merged from this template to the new one, so it is not needed for attribution purposes. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Baltan

Alien not mentioned at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not mentioned there, but is included in a lot of other related pages, to the point where I don't think there's another valid target but that it should go somewhere relevant. Tag with Template:R to article without mention and Template:R from fictional character, and maybe another editor will come along and add it later. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

;-;

Another set of emoticons with unexpectedly different targets. Using semicolons as eyes, but switching the mouth style, does not seem logical to have a difference in topics here, between the list and the general page. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine all to List of emoticons#Eastern. Might as well have the best of both worlds. Alternately, one could make an anchor on the appropriate part of the list and target there, although it's close enough to the top of the Eastern section that it's not hard to find from my suggestion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

')

Another set of two emoticons, and in this case I'm really not seeing why :') would go one way and :'( would go the other. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target both to the list, they both show up pretty early there. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Another set of emoticons with an unexpected difference in targets. This set consists of emoticons with hyphens for eyes, but the inclusion of a sweat semicolon is what separates these. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the examples given at List of emoticons#Shame includes one that has a sweat semicolon, I'd say target them all there. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with targeting the last three to List of emoticons#Shame, but would it be a good idea to target "- -" to the dab page at "--" and perhaps adding a mention of the emoticon there? I feel like that could be more useful, but would that affect incoming links too much? ObserveOwl (chit-chatmy doings) 14:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nevermind. Looking at the dab, I honestly don't expect anyone to type "- -" with a space while searching for any of the current entries on the dab. It is more likely that people are typing with an underscore, so yes, target them all to the emoticons list section. ObserveOwl (chit-chatmy doings) 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-)

A handful of emoticons structured like this are targets to either Emoticon or List of emoticons. In this case, these are all have the nose and mouth, although the eyes don't appear for technical reasons (but do at the page). I'm not seeking deletion, but rather that the difference in targets may be unexpected. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems harmless enough, and they do successfully get you where you need to go, even if they look a little ugly while doing it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes So... you're seeing utility in navigating readers to these two topics, but would prefer for the internal search engine to do that instead of short-circuiting to one of the two? Why? --Joy (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both smiling emoticons, frowning emoticons, and slash emoticons are discussed at both the general emoticon page, and at the list of emoticons page. Among this particular set where the emoticons are structured nearly identically, the difference in targets does not seem expectable. Nothing about ":-/" would make someone think they were going to a list instead of the general page about emoticons. While still ongoing, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11#XD (Emoticon) has signaled that the overarching list might be a preferable target for individual emoticon redirects. (I'll emphasize in the nomination that I'm not seeking deletion here.) Utopes (talk / cont) 15:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admittedly missed the fact that they were going to different places. I'd point them to the list, as per Utopes. (This would be a Retarget for everything but :-/ ) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes it would be best to actually say where you want to retarget, because this made me think you want to delete them. --Joy (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These redirect eixst due to technical limitations - specifically page names cannot begin with a colon, leading colons are ignored in search strings (so e.g. "-" and ":-)" lead to exactly the same place) and have a technical meaning in links (e.g. for interwikis) so e.g. -) and -) ([[-)]] and [[:-)]]) lead to the same page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuffedies

Does not appear on page with these names. Google searches don't seem to cough up support for any of the above being in-use terminology for stuffed toys. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was heading over to the creator's talk page in order to notify, when I discovered... a memorial page. I... don't think they'll be offering any input on this one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom on grounds that there doesn't seem to be a topic associated with these terms. Perhaps JuJube knew something we don't, but we appreciate their contributions to the project and honor their memory. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There seems to be a now-defunct plushy store site under that name, but it came afterwards and is unarchived. Otherwise, this doesn't seem a term that is used. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toy bunny

There are about a billion different ways to make a toy bunny that isn't a stuffed toy. Plastic, metal, wood... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnyz

Does not appear on target page. Google search results indicate a spinoff of the Petz series. History contains a page dedicated to a single non-notable rabbit plush. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to
Dogz also targets that page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Bunion, tailor's

Strangely formatted and essentially unused. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this seems to be useless. JIP | Talk 13:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is almost the way it appears in the indexes etc of other sources so it's a plausible search term and completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's listed this way on
    MeSH and probably in other print sources, also it's a common indexing method like LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME. Kk.urban (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The Cyclone Money Crib

The alternative name "The Cyclone Money Crib" for "A Financial Fable" does not seem to exist. Googling for it only finds one page, on the Disney Wiki, where it appears to be pretty obvious that the Disney Wiki copied the content from Wikipedia. No incoming links for this redirect. Delete. JIP | Talk 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Icarus Lives EP

This EP does not appear to exist. Seems to have been confused with the single "Icarus Lives!" and the Icarus EP. I vote to delete. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing this given everything HotMess and Lunamann wrote above. It's close enough to be considered a valid alternate title, and it's not getting in the way of anything. Thanks everyone for your helpful responses. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Hosptial (Medtiya Nagar) metro station

Delete per other pages with "Hosptial" in its page title, and

Deepak Hospital (Medtiya Nagar) metro station also exists and targets to the same target as the nominated redirect. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

"Politically Incorrect"

I don't believe this redirect name with quotes is necessary, especially considering the article Politically Incorrect (without quotes) already exists and covers a completely different topic (and links to a disambiguation page that leads to /pol/). Bsoyka (tcg) 02:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If kept, retarget to Politically Incorrect (disambiguation) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete" per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    WP:TSC states to avoid using quotation marks. Of course, this is a redirect, but I see no reason not to follow the policy. I assume strings like this can mess with searching. ― Synpath 00:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Evan Young (YouTuber)

Redirects to a person who the target is in a legal dispute with, but aside from that is unrelated. Geardona (talk to me?) 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia campaign

Clearly the current target is too specific. The 1864 versions could potentially be disambiguated between the

Eastern Theater of the American Civil War or Virginia in the American Civil War. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Retarget the following:
The latter retarget includes a five-way hatnote that includes all three pages listed by nom as potential dab targets. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow something I did on Wikipedia 18 years ago. Anyway yes I agree the redirect is too specific and I think the proposed changes are reasonable. David (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as nom I support the retargets for the 1864 versions above, but still feel deletion is best for the unqualified versions due to ambiguity. For instance, in addition to numerous ACW campaigns, it may also refer to the Yorktown campaign of the Revolutionary War; enwiki's article gives it explicitly as an alternative title. Google hits are mostly unrelated to either war. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose disamabiguation at Virginia campaign (with the capitalized version retargeted there) may be better than deletion. I have drafted a dab page under the redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tossing my support on here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DAB page per Mdewman6 and retarget per Lunamann. -
    Talkback) 20:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Sultanate of Morocco

A more helpful redirect would be to History of Morocco. Morocco's heads of state are presently maliks, not sultans. asilvering (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Sultanate of Morocco" is very vague, so a general article like History of Morocco is the best bet. R Prazeres (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: This is plausible search term for multiple subjects, including the Alawi dynasty and List of rulers of Morocco, which were at one time sultans. I say include History of Morocco as another listed item in such a disambiguation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Pbritti, if the reader is searching for this term they are presumably not searching for modern Morocco, but it's open to what they would actually be searching for. CMD (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le geek

Le utterly redundant 'le' redirect has arrived (and is very likely to promptly depart from the face of wikipedia). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 00:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyTimeline syntax

WP:XNR with no incoming links. Less than a year old. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Eastern Huasteca Nahuatl phonology

WP:XNR with no incoming links. Name is longer than target. Less than two years old. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Latin Orthodox Catholic Christian

Does not seem to be a plausible term or phrase regardless of where it redirects. I tried searching for the phrase using a couple of different search engines and could not find anything that contains that exact phrase. No other Wikipedia article links to it. It was created in 2011 by a user for whom this is their one and only edit. I know redirects are cheap, but there is no harm in deleting this redirect.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 00:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as nominator  — Archer1234 (t·c) 01:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In some corners of the Catholic forum/blog world–particularly portions that saw their heyday c. 2003–this is a term that someone could have plausibly invented. However, it's an implausible search term that I've never seen despite years of looking at stuff about this topic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: getting some major self-contradictory Reformed Orthodox Rabbi Bill Clinton vibes from this redirect ngl 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 12:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

EasyEnglish

Delete. This is

Wycliffe Bible Translators (the article now moved to Wycliffe USA), but later, in my opinion rightfully, the content was removed. The term is mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia except passively in the article Michael Raiter (which has its own set of problems). –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Le stay inside man

> browsing wikipedia instead of having a life
> le funny shitpost greentext redirects have arrived
> chuckle to self
> realize that they're inevitably gonna get RFD'd and deleted at some point
> cry inside
> idea
> send them out in style befitting the shitposty nature of them
> smile
> remember that it's all meaningless and won't change the outcome anyway
> continue to cry inside whilst bemoaning my lack of a life

Anyway I suggest we delete these. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 22:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le deletion as per nom. No sense in keeping an ancient, no-longer-relevant meme redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pwn - delete as unnecessary meme redirect with 0 views in the last 90 days
StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over study buddies for international students in China

Unlikely search term that is a bit generic and may or may not refer to Shandong University. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Looking at the page history, it appears that the former contents of that page got merged into the final sentence of Shandong University#Recent history (1980–present), after it got PRODded yesterday (see this version of the page). Not sure off the top of my head what the protocol for this situation is, but I suppose that knowing the context may be of some use for this discussion. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 22:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm the editor who originally PRODded the article, and I still think there should not be an article on this, for the reasons I stated there (it's not an encyclopedic topic, just a one-off event). I agree with the nominator that even if this content is preserved somewhere else, the present redirect is not a likely search term. The only reason I can see for keeping it is to avoid breaking incoming links, but there are very few of those anyway (few enough that it would be trivial to manually fix them), and most of them are just see-alsos in articles with no more than a vague relationship to this one.
    My only caveat is that almost-blanking the page and then deleting the redirect might be seen as having sneakily deleted the article while circumventing AfD. Deleting the article is the outcome I favor anyway, but I can understand if others might see this as unfair. 2001:49D0:8511:2:61FD:D141:8697:4A7F (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If both PROD and BLAR are contested then the content should be restored and sent to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and ship to AfD as per Thryduulf. There's a sneaking suspicion that we have a
    cold front coming in, looking at the article, but if it's contested, then I do think the contest should be given a proper arena. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

St. Stephen's International School

St. Stephen's School Rome is not known as "St. Stephen's International School". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The article refers to the school as an "International School" in the infobox, and this is an {{
    Talkback) 22:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary capitalism

This phrase is mentioned in the target article at

WP:REDYES potential. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Job creator(s)" and "Job creation"

Seems unclear what the target of these redirects should be. Honestly, I'm surprised that their target is not Company, though I guess an Economy could, in theory, create jobs as well. Hmm, even a Government can create jobs... Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The first two should definitely lead to the same page, I can see arguments both ways for the third.
    Job creation scheme to point there rather than the top of that article) but it reflects only one use of the term. I'm not sure about employment as a target, it's a better fit for job creation than job creator(s) I think, but not perfect. More thinking required. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can find reliable sources that define idiomatic uses of the term, and we find somewhere to target the redirects. For "job creator(s)", I'd be fine with
    soft redirects to "job creator" and "job creators", respectively. Paradoctor (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Contract labor

Since the subjects of these redirects probably refer to work done on a contract basis, I do not believe the current target or its section Employment#Independent contractor to be the best target for these redirects. From what I found, the best fit for these redirects is probably retarget to Employment contract. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, weak delete if there is no consensus to move away from the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2,6-Dinitrotoluene

Please delete. Redirect is circular when starting from target dab page; arguably squatting on article namespace and certainly matches

RFD category 10. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Power of Two

Ambiguous, and I don't see the song as

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think this should be retargeted to Power of two (disambiguation), but others may prefer Power of two. Paradoctor (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Retarget either proposal is sensible to me. Unrelated: your signature is infuriating for how it has such a gradual incline. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I had planned to place it vertically, but then my medication kicked in. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Power of two. Seems to be the primary topic and there's a hatnote pointing to the dab anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of "Cops/COPS/C.O.P.S." episodes

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I know we just had a discussion for

WP:SMALLDETAILS probably does not differentiate the two topics enough, given that Cops (TV program) can be stylized as "COPS" and COPS (animated TV series) is apparently stylized as "C.O.P.S.". In addition, at Cop#Television, there are additional TV show/program subjects listed which include an inline list of episodes. So, with all that said, I'm not sure what is the best path here. (I've also added List of C.O.P.S. episodes for completion of this nomination so others know of its existence, but I'm "weak keep" on that per my previous statement about the "C.O.P.S." stylization; either way, List of C.O.P.S. episodes is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to dab page. Create a list of episode redirect for each series using their main article title and disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finnster

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore earlier target

Jonathan Medina

Redirects from an an actor who doesn't have a page to a random tennis player Heyallkatehere (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or covert to DAB page. Google search shows results for this as an alternate name for the tennis player. Actor, footballer and an athlete all link to page, so could also convert to disambiguation page. Jevansen (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Skånska Socialdemokratiska Partiet

Bogus draft redirect. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda/Overview of results

Bunch of confusing/unlikely

WP:XNRs. Delete all unless a proper non-mainspace target can be found. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of articles

Cross namespace redirect with only links to mostly discussion archives. It is unlikely for users to link this page whatsoever. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Copyright#Ownership as it's the closest thing I can think of to the topic described by the redirect name. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Central region

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

Wikipedia:SURVEY

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

France 2024

Bringing this here based on a dispute with Abhiramakella. Based on consensus in past discussions, including one that resulted in the deletion of this redirect in the past, CountryName YYYY redirects are not unambiguously associated with events. Proposing to redirect to 2024 in France, which wasn't an option at the time this redirect was last deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per nom and per consensus from past discussions. Seems legit to me. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As overly vague. As an aside, I noticed someone recreated many of the older "Foo 20XX" redirects that had been deleted previously. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 19:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Do you have an example of any of these that were recreated after being previously deleted? The reason these were previously deleted would be contextually relevant, as a couple of these past deletions had no relevant target pages to retarget to. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pappoos

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Most likely, this is a

WP:FORRED issue. Steel1943 (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Trying to search around, and am getting vague, spotty references to the comic book character being referred to as "Pappoos" or "Pappus" in another language. I think we can chalnk this up to ]

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! 07:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barphic

The term "barphic" is not mentioned at the target article, nor is it mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: could be an incredibly unlikely double-typo for 'graphic', but I can't see any traces of this word existing anywhere 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 19:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See [27] for an attestation of the term's use in the wild from 1994. I'm not sure if that's sufficient to retain the redirect. Tevildo (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Other than that one Usenet post there seems to be nothing else suggesting this was used or refers to ASCII art. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look of disapproval

Without any other context, I feel that a look of disapproval would be quite associated with Disappointment and Regret, and not exclusively a stare-emoticon. This term is otherwise vague for looks of disapproval. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to
    ಠ_ಠ
    .
While the expression "look of disapproval" exists, it is not
idiomatic, it's meaning completely derives from its parts. Should sourcable idiomatic uses other than the emoticon become known in the future, we'll disambiguate. Paradoctor (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

List of common emoticons

Le Lenny Face

Is not referred to as "Le Lenny Face" anywhere at the target article. The grammatical article of "le" obfuscates the search term and is as useful as attaching "the" to any subject (i.e. not that useful). Utopes (talk / cont) 04:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,
Lennyface, and multiple other variations exist too. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Hm. Well, in that case, updating to Weak refine to List_of_emoticons#Lenny_Face to match those. If we keep this, it might as well go right to the emoticon actually described as a Lenny Face. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has made an argument for keeping the "le-" version, Lunamann says above that they don't know how much precedent the "le-" has while saying "if we keep this". Utopes (talk / cont) 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. In terms of reasons to keep it - in both of the sources cited for Lenny Face in List of emoticons#Lenny Face, it is acknowleged as being "le lenny face". But in terms of reasons to delete it - it looks like most of the existing 'le' redirects out there either exist for reasons related to French or are blatantly RFD-worthy shitpost redirects. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 23:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desu face

Not mentioned at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia. Contains very crufty 2008 edits (all unsourced of course). Utopes (talk / cont) 04:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the examples that show up in the 2008-era articles, •^• does not appear on the list, while :< simply shows up under the entry for Frown. ( >: is simply a backwards version of the latter.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard faces

Emoji are also keyboard faces, but the title is vague enough that the current target is probably not the most suitable, if any. Contains 2 edits of June 2009 history. While it looks like patrollers were lax about the "online emotions" unsourced cruft list, let's just say that NPP today would not approve of the immediate CSD within 2 minutes of creation and conversion into a redirect immediately after 💀. (Looking back on it, at least the text was legible so it wouldn't be complete nonsense imo). Nevertheless, very 2009 :v Utopes (talk / cont) 04:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of online emotions

The target page is certainly not a list of emotions that you can experience online. Contains 4 edits worth of May 2008 history before evaporating into a redirect. Quite 2008 I'd say :v Utopes (talk / cont) 04:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kao maaku

Neither "Kao maaku" nor "maaku" are mentioned at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern-style emoticon

No mention of "eastern" nor "eastern-style" emoticons that are named in this specific way at the target page. There is also no "Japanese style" section at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re edit: There is no section titled "Japanese style" at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found it-- the section existed, it just wasn't under "Japanese style". Re-refine to Emoticon#Kaomoji (Japan ASCII movement) or Retarget to Kaomoji. (Either works, given the former hatnotes to the latter.)𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emoticon#Kaomoji (Japan ASCII movement). The Japanese, Chinese and Korean styles used to be grouped into one heading in the aticle but are now split over three, starting with the Japanese so readers looking for Chinese or Korean can just continue reading. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thread emoji

No mention of threads at the target article. Any emoji can be used in a thread, and is not automatically an emoticon. The refinement of Unicode is also not particularly specific to threads either. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome face

There is no mention of "Awesome face" at the target article, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facial Expression Markup Language

The target page is not about Facial Expression Markup Language, and "markup language" does not occur anywhere in the body of the article. Perhaps in the past there used to be something here, but that does not seem to be the case anymore. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Virtual Human Markup Language which doesn't use the exact phrase but does mention facial expressions and is about the same topic that google hits indicate is the main meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colon Bracket

A vague name that is not mentioned at the target page, yet can reasonably imply other punctuation topics. The history is possibly the most 2005 of them all, created in 6 edits by an editors' only 6 edits. However, it has dubious usefulness as a redirect here. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less than three

While a heart can definitely be formed as <3, this is still a general statement that does not apply to emoticons alone. It's pointed here for a while, yet there's also Less Than Three with different caps. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify: Move the existing
MOS:SPELL09. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

List of smiley codes

The phrase "smiley code" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and this page is certainly not a list of them. Has some 2005 cruft history to list the three primary emotions that humans can muster: Happy, Sad, and Money Smiley. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smarticon

"Smarticon" not mentioned at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While this redirect was certainly correct in 2007 and I still use it the same way sometimes these days, a quick Internet search shows that the use of the word has changed over the last 17 years. Fine by me to change/delete/keep it. Looking through the other redirect discussions: thanks for your work. RichiH (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midget emoticon

"Midget" is not mentioned anywhere at the page, much less "midget emoticon", which isn't mentioned anywhere. Contains one edit worth of 2005 cruft swiftly removed. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Emoticons

Facebook is not discussed at the target page; emoticons exist on all platforms regardless of the host, so there's nothing to be gained from a specific redirect here. (Does contain some very 2009-esque history though). Utopes (talk / cont) 03:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No mention at target. The history is cute. :3 –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chalamius

No mention of "Chalamius" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete GSearch just turns up Urban Dictionary and a bunch of user names for different websites --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verticon

No mention of "Verticon" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia besides in a section of ASCII art as a section header without any meaningful content nor specific description. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photocon

No mention of "Photocon" at the target page, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. PhotoCON is a pretty safe retargeting option, but perhaps there's a reason for this redirect to exist that I'm not familiar with. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to PhotoCON for now as plausible caps variant. I think it could also point to a photography conference or contest article but we don't have those. --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Face

No mention of "Epic Face" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Emotions

Japanese emotions are not purely "emoticons", even if some emoticons are Japanese. Misleading and unhelpful redirect, not discussed anywhere at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Kaomoji, a Japanese emoticon-link art form that predates modern emoticons, was on (very old, c. 2006) versions of emoticon, and likely was the intended subject of this title. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this _onfusing misspelling. ― Synpath 23:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Japanese people can feel emotion and are not limited to text based representation. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graemlin

No mention of "Graemlin" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google tells me that Graemlin is a computer model - "General and robust alignment of multiple large interaction networks" but I don't understand enough of results to say more. Whatever it is though it's not related to emoticons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emotext

Section title no longer exists. No mention of "EmoteXT" or "Emotext" anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Monocracy

This redirect appears to be an attempt at a pun disguised as a typo implying the battle was somehow related to monocracy, which it was not. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I took the liberty of tagging it as suggested by Skynxnex. Paradoctor (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in Israel

This redirect might need a new target. Important because it is used in the {{

ed. put'er there 05:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Create content here as suggested on the talk page by LilianaUwU and Sawyer-mcdonell this could be a disambig, list or overview article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it an actual page. This could very well be a summary of terrorism in Israel like Terrorism in the United States is. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig for now, to be turned into an overview article - terrorism in Israel is certainly a notable topic with RS, and I agree with Liliana that it can be a standalone article. Also, there has been terrorism in Israel unrelated (or not directly related) to the I-P conflict, so readers aren't getting a full picture of the topic from the redirect. I have some concerns about NPOV with the redirect target as well, and creating a content page would help. sawyer * he/they * talk 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDYES argument for deletion. Alternatively, disambiguation has been proposed but it's not entirely clear which articles would be listed on such a disambiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rosguill's earlier relist comment still applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

Associated Press Service

I can't find any evidence that the Associated Press Service still exists, nor that it's connected with the Associated Press of Pakistan. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Power (series)

Delete or add sourced mention to target, where it isn't mentioned. Narky Blert (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This was originally created as an article (at Mind Power series, which I've added to this nomination). Rosguill tagged it with {{Notability}}, then three days later Scope creep redirected it with the edit summary "Brochure article. G11. References are specific to the products existance, packaging etc with no standalone notability.". Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. If it can be sourced (I've not looked), a slightly condensed version of the prose in this revision should be merged to The Learning Company#Software and both redirects refined to point at that mention. If it can't be sourced, delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the target and creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no mention of “Mind Power” anywhere on the target page, and so someone redirected to The Learning Company may be very confused as to why they were redirected there. - Dyork (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaltronica

this term seems to exist, but not in the context of music, so a redirect to electroniccore doesn't make any sense FMSky (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A google search for 'Metaltronica' on its own does crowd the search with references to an Italian medical instrument manufacturer (which may be worthy of an article?), however, searching for 'Metaltronica music' does reveal that it is indeed used as a music genre title, by artists like FRANK NILE and DJ Mahoutsukai (although how related these two examples are to each other, and how related they are to Electronicore, may need some investigation-- I notice that FRANK NILE seems to be under the impression as of three weeks ago that he created the genre whole cloth, while DJ Mahoutsukai's work is from three years ago.) I'm not sure whether these two examples are enough to keep, and the Italian medical instrument manufacturer may require disambiguation. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do not see the connection to “Electronicore”, and also no mention of anything like “Metaltronica” on target page. - Dyork (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the second: The name 'Metaltronica' seems to be a portmanteau of 'Metal' (as in Metalcore) and 'Electronica', the two components of Electronicore according to Electronicore. The idea of "Metaltronica" being an independently-coined name for the same genre seems to track to me. That said, you are correct in that it doesn't show up on the page. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip On This

Gossip On This is not mentioned on the target page, and after a quick search, I don't see a connection between these two topics. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UFC event

This redirect could have numerous targets relating to UFC. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two Areas

This redirect could apply to too many topics to be valuable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as way too ambiguous to be useful. Four of the first ten hits on my google search were related to anti-wrinkle injections (which I really did not expect!) but that's not enough for primary topic and nothing else got more than one hit. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not super invested in this, but it's a widely-used term for the topic that I had redirected it to. I don't see how it hurts to keep the redirect, whereas deleting it makes the topic almost impossible to find by that (common) name for it. Wikipedia has lots of articles with titles which can refer to other things, particularly in cases such as anti-wrinkle injection lingo, where the topic isn't necessarily fit for a Wikipedia article. If there are multiple possible relevant topics it could refer to, shouldn't that mean it needs a disambiguation page, rather than being deleted? GeoEvan (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you share any reliable sources that use this term? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41] GeoEvan (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf, very generic -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GeoEvan, and possibly disambiguate (at
    WP:DIFFCAPS) if someone can identify a good set of targets. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

If a greater wave shall fall it will fall upon a song

This redirect is based on a misunderstanding of the song's lyrics. The song lyrics read, "If a great wave shall fall / And fall upon us all". Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How common of a mondegreen is it? If it's a common enough misunderstanding of the lyrics, it should be kept, but otherwise, throw it out. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doramon

Delete. This is a redirect with one single incoming link from a page in the User namespace. Apparently just another misspelling or typo. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This a very well used redirect (39 hits in the 30 days prior to this nomination, over 200 last year) evidencing that this is a very plausible search term, especially for people who have heard the name but not seen it written. As noted at the top of the page Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. and redirects from common misspellings and typos are good redirects to have (see Category:Redirects from misspellings). Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atimes.com

Delete Keep per Paul_012. This domain (now a redirect to malware) belonged to a different organisation called Asia Times. We risk confusing and misleading readers by having this redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
16:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No sense in inadvertently directing users to a malware site. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How are they supposed to be different organisations? The article already covers the entirety of its history. Atimes.com was their old domain until 2019 when they moved to asiatimes.com, and continued to redirect there until it expired in 2020, according to the Wayback Machine. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rich Farmbrough, could it be that you misunderstood the site's history? I see you recently mentioned on the target article's talk page that Asiatimes.com existed in 1996, but that's a different, unrelated site. Look at the Wayback Machine's calendar and you'll see that Asiatimes.com only became active in 2019, before which the site was at Atimes.com. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a good idea to lead our readers to malware. --Lenticel (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lunamann, Lenticel, in what circumstances would the existence of a redirect lead readers to the site? Redirects serve the reverse purpose. It leads readers who actually type in the domain to the article with which the domain used to be associated. The only way someone could be led to the site from the redirect is them checking "What links here" in the tools menu, then sifting through the hundreds of links (or selecting "Hide links") to find the URL, then deliberately typing it in the address bar. Anyone doing so would probably know enough to understand the risks. (Though maybe a warning template for such redirects might be useful.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. Still feels weird to have it here, though, especially without such a warning template... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grounded videos

The section ‘Grounded videos’ was removed. Delete this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talkcontribs) 02:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Grounded videos is originally nominated for deletion by User:Aitraintheeditorandgamer in this edit, and the template was mistakenly added to the wrong page. Therefore, I am correcting this entry here.DreamRimmer (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe salt: I told user
    web blog. I think there needs to be more reliable coverage on the subject beyond that one source or a passing mention, before I can reconsider reinstatement. Salting is mentioned here because the title was previously deleted five times prior to this request. --Minoa (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Adic

This page has a long history of pointing at various targets. Right now Arity has a link to p-adic number, one of the previous targets of this redirect, in the "see also" section (which I would consider misuse, as hatnotes should be used for this purpose). Incidentally, until 2018, this was redirecting to the article on the more general concept of Completion of a ring (which currently does not explicitly introduce the term "I-adic completion" but does so for the I-adic topology, while linking to the main article on that topic). It also briefly was some sort of disambiguation page, as the title (modulo capitalisation) can also be an abbreviation of Advanced Digital Information Corporation. The question is whether arity is the primary topic here (and the ambiguity should be resolved by hatnotes or a separate DAB page), or whether this title itself should be disambiguated. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a disambiguation page in 2006 (link), and it should be one again. The math section here can be expanded to include the other meanings besides the
p-adic numbers. Redirecting to Arity makes little sense when the numbers are more common, and the people who keep trying to put ADIC back in suggest that it's needed for that as well. (Perhaps the two disambiguation pages should be combined, but then it should capitalized as here, not there.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Re-Dabify as per Toby. Hopefully this should serve to handle the redirect tug-of-war. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: as per Toby. Putting the contents of ADIC into here makes sense as well. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be disambiguated, I have no preference whether that is at Adic or ADIC, but there should be a single page covering both. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify Merging the dabs helps protect against the 2-dabs curse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ADIC (a disambiguation page) as all the dabify comments above suggest. The disambiguation page already exists. We do not need a second one. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I have now added the term "I-adic completion" explicitly into the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy (character)

Not mentioned, and that's not Roxy. So, I suggest a retarget to Roxy (given name), due to no primary topic. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Roxy (given name)#Fictional characters, a refinement of the proposed retarget. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brookville Police Department

no mention on target page, plausibly notable. asilvering (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeletE as per nom.
WP:REDLINK. I uh, think you put this new RfD nomination right in the middle of an existing nomination, which means you stole the original version of this comment from Master of the TreboN Altarpiece ^^; That said, no harm no foul, as my vote for this one is mostly the same anyways! Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Lunamann: What happened was the first non-bot edit of the day broke the top text that Twinkle uses to detect where to put new RfD nominations. But ... this is odd since apparently, per other nominations on this page, XFDcloser ... knew where to put the relisted nominations, even with the top matter looking abnormal. Maybe Twinkle could take a bit of code from XFDcloser to utilize for new RfD nominations in the same manner that XFDcloser determines where to place a relisted discussion? (Eh, might as well ping Novem Linguae so they are aware of this as they seem to be one of the most active editors at monitoring both tools these days.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Weird. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, weird! I didn't realize that's what happened and was wondering why your initial comment didn't seem to make sense. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can add a mention of the department on the target page a little later today. I thought I did so already but I guess I am mistaken. My apologies. Infrastorian (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note, for the record, that this proposed edit would change my vote from Delete (er, DeletE) to Keep (or perhaps, Refine.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to Brookville, New York#Government, which now has a mention. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Brookville. The Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Brookvilles (at least) also have police departments, and the Ohio Brookville is about double the New York one's population. No telling which Brookville Police a reader is likely to be looking for. (Alternatively, if someone wants to put in the work, this could be a disambiguation page just among the four (?) Brookvilles with police departments.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mention added at Brookville, New York is so brief that it's hardly useful at all. There's no point retargeting to the place name's disambiguation page. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023 Terrorist Encounter in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

"Terrorist Encounter"? Was at this title for under a day. Rusalkii (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since both keep !votes are weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury home

After the merging of

Luxury real estate into the general article, the redirect of "luxury home" does not appear to be super useful as it does not bear a mention at any location. Additionally, while the plural version may indicate "multiple homes" being sought, it doesn't seem specific enough to target something besides what the singular version does. Looking at these two options side by side in the search bar, it's a shot-in-the-dark for readers to figure out where each'll go. Perhaps there's a better alternative, because neither status quo seems necessary currently. (I'll mention that "luxury homes" was repointed to the category in 2020 by a user later blocked for NOTHERE). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

LGBT liberal

A story of two redirects created for the same circumstance, but resulted in vastly different outcomes. Both of these were created by a sockpuppet as an antonym redirect to LGBT conservatism. However, these two received target changes before they could be G5'ed. LGBT liberal went to Category:LGBT liberalism, which such a redirect-to-category-space I don't think is helpful nor necessary for this term. The title match to the category however, LGBT liberalism, ended up getting retargeted to Liberalism, where this terminology never gets mentioned. While the difference in targets is certainly a problem, I believe that between the "borderline-parallel category" and "page without mention", NEITHER of the existing solutions are a great fit for the terms. The only mainspace page that discusses these topics in tandem is LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, which might work, but even then it begs the question whether these sockpuppet terms are even needed to begin with, as none of the possibilities are stellar. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal abuse

While permitted, redirecting to a category is not the most ideal outcome for readers, and existing targets in article space should be prioritized where possible. Was BLAR'd in 2022 and converted into a redirect to a particular category, but I feel Abuse#Legal abuse might be more appropriate and helpful for readers on a wider scale. While not much content exists at the page currently, it has the category handily linked right there. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per nom. Perhaps the redirects pointing there could spur some editors to flesh it out, hm~? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insect pest of grape

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

In the grand scheme of redirects into category space, this title does not seem to have an apparent need as it stands. It currently exists as an unlikely search term for the subject, pointing at a title that just contains a handful of insect articles. Grape pest insects does not exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, this is some EXTREMELY strange and rather unlikely phrasing. On the other, I don't think there's really any better place for it to point, if kept. Delete as per nom, failing that, oppose any retarget effort until further notice. (Further notice being myself going 'Hey wait, that IS a good retarget' and changing my vote.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas–Permian Basin Falcons football players

Not particularly useful or conventional to target this cross-namespace redirect to a category of football players. Evidenced from [43], these types of redirects are mainly used for journals and not just any category that exists. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uk public

R3 declined due to not recent (February vs November), this is an otherwise vague search term which doesn't exclusively apply to constitutional law, from my understanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asenso Abrenio

External sources have led me to believe this is a song/dance. No mention at the target, unclear relationship to a politician. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny book

Not mentioned in the target article. Without a specify code mention tying the redirect as an alternative name of the target page, the redirect is ambiguous since the only type of book which may be funny is not exclusive to Comic book. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing I can think of as to why this exists is this definition for 'funnies' on Wiktionary. The issue (ha) is, the adjective "funny" is thought of a lot more than the noun. Not only are comic books not inherently funny, there are plenty of comedy books out there that aren't comic books. This sort of ambiguity kills the redirect. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not all comics are funny, but “funny book” used to be a standard term for comic books, a la “the funnies”. I would never expect this term to lead anywhere but to comic book… but I say “weak” keep because I CAN imagine a different person less familiar with historical comics terminology who expected to end up at something like comic fiction or some existing pages about novels that are funny. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
very very weak retarget to comic novel or all star "the goddamn" batman & robin, the boy wonder, or delete as vague. if i read super mario 64's manual and get a laugh out of it, that would make it a "funny book"
i don't think whether or not it had some niche use before matters because that use is very much gone cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 05:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: stupidly vague ngl 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 23:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As LEvalyn pointed out, "funny book" was once used interchangeably with "comic book", just as newspaper comics were once called "funnies" and occurred on the "funny pages". The fact that this use is dated doesn't make it incorrect; people might run across the term and try to look it up. Unless there is another plausible target, it should stay where it is. And even though not all comic books are funny, and non-comic books may also be funny, I don't believe there has ever been a time when this specific phrase referred to anything else, and I don't find it plausible that most readers will expect it to go to a different target. P Aculeius (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

GTA7

Un-needed redirect from a unreleased title. Geardona (talk to me?) 04:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a solution similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#市 be appropriate in this case as well? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suspect not, as wikt:县 seems to suggest this character is only used in simplified Chinese, not in Japanese, Korean, or traditional Chinese. Do you have other targets in mind besides Counties of China? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense compared to 'wikt:市'; that method of investigation also appears to be a good way to determine if such characters are in potential need of disambiguation. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably this could redirect to
    県 (Japanese shinjitai) being redirects for those countries, is also fine as it is. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

List of arunachal pradesh cricketer

Delete. I can't see how this serves any purpose. It is lower case and singular, so who would enter that as a search term? Batagur baska (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone who doesn't hit the caps lock key and accidentally hits Enter before the last character? Seems plausible to me. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osborn Corners, Ohio

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18#Osborn Corners, Ohio

Tenemos

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18#Tenemos

Matthew (Fire Emblem)

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

Deir el-Balah bombing

Not mentioned anywhere in the article, and comments on the talk page indicate that there are no plans to add it. These are different events. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:COURT

The Arbitration Committee is not a court. — JJMC89(T·C) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget. Someone using this redirect is plausibly looking for Wikipedia's court, and they should be taken to a page that explains that we don't have a court (or at least not a court of law) but the closest thing is the Arbitration Committee. The current page sort of does that, but not perfectly -
    Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration doesn't use the words exactly but does state "Arbitration is not a legal process", so would make an equally good target I think. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. It's confusing and misleading. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0 uses is kind of damning. The other redirects of the same sense have similarly low use [44][45][46]. (What the heck is [47].) Izno (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only existed for five weeks, and lack of incoming internal links is explicitly not relevant to whether a redirect should or should not be deleted. As for your "what the heck" this was redirected after the original content was moved to User:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius, which is effectively an essay that emerged out of the discussions that created the Arbitration Committee. Basically it is saying (in attempted(?) legalese that an arbitration case can be requested either directly or by or via Jimbo, that Jimbo can direct a case to be opened and that Jimbo can investigate matters on his own if he wants. The first part is obviously still true (anyone can request a case directly), the second is also technically true (Jimbo can request a case in the same way as any other editor, including related to disputes he is asked to look at). Jimbo can't direct that a case be opened (anymore?). He can investigate a dispute if he chooses to do so, although he is very unlikely to do so and is very limited in what remedies he could impose (he renounced the right to unilaterally ban people in 2022 and gave up other advanced rights in 2023). Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the other examples of links of this sense, the first is a decade old, the second well on its way to that, and the third a year and a half old (and was previously deleted at MFD an eternity ago). That this one is only 5 weeks old doesn't inspire. Izno (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other redirect's
    aren't relevant to this one, and the age isn't really relevant either. The redirect is not doing any harm - indeed as it serves to correct misunderstandings it's the opposite of misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Usage of the redirect in discussions would increase confusion, not reduce it. It's good that it's not being used and it should be removed before it is. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if anyone did use this in a discussion, the context would make things clear. However, redirects like this are much more useful as search targets rather than for linking - for example a relatively new editor would plausibly search this, and be taken to exactly the page that explains what he have instead of a court, rather than unpredictable search results (sometimes several clicks/taps away) that may or may not be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source were previously the top results for a "court" search in Wikipedia space. This redirect made search worse, not better. Bumping down other court-related results and repeating the top result is not a net positive. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agree that it's misleading. In the unlikely event that a user entered this in the search box, the search results would be more useful than this redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's no good single redirect; there are several WikiProjects that deal with courts and law, so none of them are a great option, and ARBCOM is not a court. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target does not need to actually be a court in order to be helpful. Coincidentally, I recently watched a Youtube video titled: "The Court That Settles Wikipedia Editor Drama" from Half as Interesting. Now, is ArbCom literally a court? I suppose not, but it's a widely popular misconception to the public based on several journal stories which have covered influential ArbCom cases. Pageviews might not be there as this was made recently in 2024 and people were hitting
    WP:Great Dismal Swamp isn't actually a murky wetland supporting sealife, adding redirect support for a popular misconception still fulfills the need for someone that wants to get to Wikipedia's court, but doesn't know what it's technically called. (Those long words'll get ya good! Both "Arbitration" and "Committee" with 9+ letters, who has time to memorize that?) Quite helpful for people who have a basic understanding of Project space, but are unsure of the names of the "complicated noticeboards". Nothing else seems to be more courtlike in WP space than ArbCom, but if there is something strongly-more-associated I wouldn't mind a retarget either. Deletion is not beneficial in my eyes. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as per Utopes and Thryduulf. ArbCom may not be an actual court, but the ArbCom page literally has scales of justice displayed right there in the center, for cryin' out loud, it's clearly "where justice is meted out". Heck, WP:COURT might even help with a few
    WP:ALP issues. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Hovannessian

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

Glazed ham

Not mentioned in the target article. Looks as though the term was formerly in the article, but is no longer there. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Job (economics)

I'm not sure about this redirect being clear in what it is meant to refer. Is it meant to refer to a job in the economics field? If so, I don't believe the current target or Employment to be proper targets. I also do not believe that retargeting to Job (disambiguation) would be helpful either since the only correlation it would have listed there would be whatever Job refers to, which is currently a redirect to Work (human activity). Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also tagged the redirect as "R from merge".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the parenthetical disambiguation is reasonably clear. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinebooks

These redirects to Cinebook (a British publishing company founded in 2005) were created by Tajotep in 2017; however, as can be seen in Special:WhatLinksHere/Cinebooks, most (or all?; e.g., at Romance of a Horsethief) of the links are incorrect, referring to Cinebooks/CineBooks, an American company that published The Motion Picture Guide in 1985. J3133 (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunamann: I only support keeping if all of the incorrect links that currently point to the British company are removed, or changed to different (red) links if a future article is planned for the American company. J3133 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I don't think those links should stay. That said, I don't think it should point right here-- these links are a bit too close to the name of the existing article on Cinebook (UK). They need to be removed, or
WP:REDYES'd, all to the same target, with that target having a disambiguator. CineBooks (American company) perhaps? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Midnight Miracle

Not mentioned at target. This redirect was created shortly after a relevant / similar discussion was closed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_24#Georgia_Bulldogs'_Midnight_Miracle. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different redirect. It just says Midnight Miracle. Abhiramakella (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is far from the primary topic for the search term. Topping the list is a podcast, mentioned in a table at Luminary (podcast network)#Programming but that's not sufficient to anchor a redirect, and on the articles about all three of the hosts (targetting any one of the hosts would present XY issues; I can't rule out the podcast being notable. After that comes a skin oil/cream that doesn't appear to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all (and doesn't seem like it should be). Excluding both those brings up a myriad of different things, but none of them relate to American football. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not found in target article. -Dyork (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Miracle at Midnight. Jay 💬 18:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any evidence that Miracle at Midnight is called this? If not delete * Pppery * it has begun... 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, hence "weak". Jay 💬 07:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck off, for better consensus. Jay 💬 06:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:V, attestation as a name for this event has not been verified with a sourced mention at the article. Attestation as a form of Miracle at Midnight has also not been established. -- Tavix (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Retarget to Luminary (podcast network). "Midnight Miracle" is mentioned 4 times in enwiki: at the podcast article, and at the articles of the 3 co-creators whose articles are all linked from the podcast article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Luminary (podcast network) per Shhhnotsoloud. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retargeting to Luminary (podcast network), while not the most !voted numerically, has been unchallenged since the !votes to retarget here began. However, the concern that the entry does not have sufficient content to anchor a redirect has not been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 05:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I still feel that mentions of the podcast network are insufficient to make this a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Luminary; it at least puts the title in context. 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talkcontribs)

~( 8^(I)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18#~( 8^(I)

O3o

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

XD (Emoticon)

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: target both to List of emoticons

Notre Dame de Miséricorde

Far too ambiguous to point directly to a particular church. See for example fr:Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Miséricorde, which lists many of these churches, none of which are the cathedral in Benin. asilvering (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gelovani (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18#Gelovani (disambiguation)

Delete: Unicode symbol that does not appears in any WP article (including the current target) D.Lazard (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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! 04:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT reproduction

(please also add LGBTQ reproduction, LGBT Reproduction, Lesbian reproduction, Gay reproduction and LGBTQ+ Production of Family to this discussion)

As noted in the move discussion at

WP:NEOLOGISM. – GnocchiFan (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled the five mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

Birayma N'dyeme Eter

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: kept.

Public Transport in Newcastle

First thing that is wrong is that the second and subsequent words should not be capitalized unless its a proper noun. But anyway, the thing is

Australia so I am not sure if this could either serve as a redirect to Newcastle or a new dab page. In case of the latter, the article title needs to change to 'Public transport in Newcastle'. I am leaning towards creating a dab page btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuniperChill (talkcontribs) 14:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Alien 2

Proposing a retarget to Aliens (film). Although Alien 2: On Earth (apparently a real film) does contain the title "Alien 2", Aliens — the actual sequel to Alien (film) — is without question more notable and the more likely target when readers search for "Alien 2", seeking to find the sequel to the first film (but perhaps not remembering its title). InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Aliens (film) "Alien 2" was intended as an unofficial sequel, therefore it automatically has less prominence than the actual sequel it was trying to mimic. If it were entirely unrelated, my opinion would be different. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafted a disambig with no primary at the redirect. If Aliens is the primary, the draft may be copied over to a Alien 2 (disambiguation). The Alien 2 entries may be removed from the Alien dab, and the Alien 2 dab be added to its See also. Jay 💬 13:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see that 65.92.247.66 created a disambig draft after the relist, but before I created my draft, and I was not aware of it. DrowssapSMM accepted the draft as Alien 2 (disambiguation) which was a REDLINK when I had suggested it. I see that the IP's dab also has no primary, hence the dab may be merge-and-redirected to Alien 2 or moved. Jay 💬 09:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page Alien (avoiding a duplicate list at a different disambiguation page). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, the !votes really are all over the place here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the existing DAB Alien#Films (a refinement of the proposed retarget by Shhhnotsoloud). That said, there really doesn't seem to be much consensus here yet... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like this should be a BARTENDER close. There seems to be almost no support for the status quo. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus for the status quo, but no consenus on an alternative yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shemʿon VIII Sulaqa

This spelling does not seem to be used anywhere outside the Spanish Wikipedia.

WP:R#DELETE #8 (obscure). Викидим (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep:Please note that the name "
    Aramaic languages. As the scope of the article is Syriac in nature and not Spanish, It would help various links to be re targeted and help Syriac Community as the pronunciation of the name is also based on the same, Thanks. J.Stalin S Talk 04:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Style (EP)

At this title for five minutes at creation due to a mistake of page creator. Incorrect and potentially confusing. Rusalkii (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mullhausen

This is not a correct spelling without diacritics (which will be Muehlhausen). This is not a popular misspelling either, Mullhausen is usually a family name.

WP:R#DELETE #8 or #2. Викидим (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

War of the Aequans

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

November 9 1989

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 17#November 9 1989

Diagonal Star Clock

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Crooked House murder

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

AGE

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy keep.

March 4

Fruit cups

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget

Corea del Norte

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

Writer, illustrator, and publisher

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

Funny book

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12#Funny book

Redirects with "Katha-" prefix targeting Comic book

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

Elements of a story

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdraw/retarget

Candidates for the first novel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9#Candidates for the first novel

The novel

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

Histories (history of the novel)

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

Elements of a yarn

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

Creating Stories

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdraw/retarget

Golden State Party

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

(Pokemon character)

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Black War: Mission Exteme 2

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

Rainbow Coalition (Ireland 1992)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Terrorism in Israel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 13#Terrorism in Israel

Deir el-Balah bombing

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11#Deir el-Balah bombing

Matthew (Fire Emblem)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11#Matthew (Fire Emblem)

Down And Dirtys

Slang term which is not referenced in the article. "And" is also improperly capitalized. Delete. 162 etc. (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Down and dirty is a disambig, but the only thing plausibly pluralised there is the Canadian synonym for Cuba Libra, but that would presumably be "Down and dirties". The capitalisation of "and" is irrelevant as it's equally plausible to "Down and Dirtys". Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the reference to
    Cuba Libre from the dabpage, could not verify that this is an actual use for "Down and dirty". 162 etc. (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's no reference on the target page and in quick searching I can't find any reference of this phrase to the target text. - Dyork (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative retarget??? Found a few tentative references to "Down and Dirties" as a street name for this drug, being here and here. No clue exactly how good they are as references, but it seems to be a street name for the drug, if not a common one. In any case, any actual keeping of this redirect would probably require retargeting to the disambig, and making the disambig have a link to Methaqualone. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Dyork. Also because of the incorrect pluralization. Jay 💬 06:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parsley Elementary

Retarget to

edit summary). The change corresponds to a change of the name of the school made at around that time. There is much more of discussion of "Parsley Elementary" in the Wilmington massacre article, which contains a discussion of why the name of the school was selected in 2000 and why the name was then changed 20 years later. Additionally, I plan to restore a mention of the school's former name in the article about Wilmington, North Carolina. The school was renamed only a few years ago, so it is reasonable for people to be looking for information about a school with that name in that article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wilmington, North Carolina#Elementary schools instead, in order to fix the wrong-section-heading issue (the article does not have a section called "Primary schools", but does have a section called "Elementary schools"). As it stands currently (edit: thanks to the nom), the name 'Walter L. Parsley Elementary' does show up in the article, as the listing for Masonboro reads "Masonboro (formerly called Walter L. Parsley Elementary)". In addition, the text 'Walter L. Parsley Elementary' in that listing is a link to Wilmington massacre, the proposed-by-nom target. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What should the target be? Wilmington, North Carolina#Elementary schools or Wilmington massacre?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wilmington, North Carolina#Elementary schools as that seems to be a logical expectation of an end user if they are searching on this phrase. Going to the Wilmington massacre page doesn't make much sense to me and the school mention is just brief and farther down the page. I would expect someone winding up on the massacre page would be confused about why they are there. - Dyork (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and add details that were available at Wilmington massacre. I did not find the content to be relevant to the massacre article, so I trimmed it, but it is available in the history. Jay 💬 06:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koit (ajaleht)

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

Template:R from subtitle

I'm concerned that this rcat redirect is ambiguous. The term subtitle seems likely to be thought of as referring to a subtitle on its own, but it's clear from previous discussion on the redirect's talk page that - when it was created - this rcat-redirect was intended for use on pages with titles in the form Title: Subtitle. The ambiguity is shown from this rcat's incorrect referencing in comments during RfDs for Outdoor Retreat (2017 discussion) & Animal Parade (2022 discussion), other comments made on the redirect's talk page, and the 20 redirects from a subtitle on its own that are tagged with this rcat-redirect.

This ambiguity is problematic, as it means that redirects from subtitles on their own are being tagged as more specific versions of the target names; when the opposite is likely true. Because of this, and because the rcat {{

R from full name
}}, which wouldn't have the same issues regarding ambiguity.)

If consensus is found to delete this redirect, I propose that the redirects currently tagged with {{

R from full name}} (with the exception of the redirects at this list, which I propose have the rcat replaced with {{R from incomplete name}}). I also propose that Template talk:R from subtitle is marked as {{G8-exempt
}}, due to containing discussion that may be useful for reference (& potentially for future rcats).

Let me know if there are any queries. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Note: Notified the participants of the previous talk page discussion about this RfD, in addition to the talk pages of this redirect's current & previous targets. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and deprecate. The redirect should be moved to
    R from full name}} if desired) with correct uses migrated there. If the incorrect uses should use a new template:R from subtitle alone (or some similar name) (created as a redirect if separate categorisation is not currently desired). The current title should note that it is deprecated in favour of the two more specific options. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap, and I don't find this confusing. Additional redirects can be created to cover the other cases. BD2412 T 16:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with editor BD2412 that this has not been a source of confusion up to now. Problematic ambiguity (good catch btw, editor ASK) can be easily fixed as noted.
    ed. put'er there 10:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Paine Ellsworth: With respect, I'd disagree that there hasn't been any confusion up until now - in my opinion, the talk page discussion shows that there was confusion about the meaning of this rcat-redirect from at least 2015. The incorrectly tagged redirects also show that multiple editors using this rcat-redirect have been confused regarding its intended application. Unless there's something I'm missing (please tell me if there is), without this redirect either being deleted or (as Thryduulf suggests) moved and deprecated, I don't see how problems arising as a result of the ambiguity can be easily fixed: from what I can see, it would require someone to continuously check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R from subtitle for any redirects that don't match the target rcat - at which point, why not just have the other (non-ambiguous) rcats/rcat redirects for editors to choose between? All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course like editor BD2412 wrote, I meant that it's not been much of a source of confusion for myself. I do remember some back and forth on the talk pages about it, and I guess the editor who was actually going to turn this redirect into an rcat template in its own right never got around to it. Lot's involved with that, and it apparently was low on the priority list.
ed. put'er there 11:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Tenemos

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11#Tenemos

Thuc

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Dchicha

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 15#Dchicha

Glazed ham

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11#Glazed ham

Osborn Corners, Ohio

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11#Osborn Corners, Ohio

Fag Enabler

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

Unmentioned Pokemon characters

Pokemon character not mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bundled the rest of these titles after leaving the following comment: "Bundle of other Pokemon character redirects without mentions at the target. After the removal of most/all gym leaders from the target, there are many misleading redirects that have been left as a result. I don't think it's possible to get through all of these in one go so this will only be a handful of possible egregious examples." Utopes (talk / cont) 04:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I cleaned this article out of all the non-notable cruft a while back, but never had the redirects deleted. This is good and necessary cleanup, thank you! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support deleting all, but maybe checking if the unova elite four could get something someday cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Pokémon anime characters. I've not checked every single one of these redirects, but those I spot checked are all mentioned there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i checked, and not all of them are there
    but if they were and got retargeted, i would support cleaning that list up and bringing 95% of the redirects back to rfd anyway, as it's currently only barely less fancrufty than a nintendo direct reaction stream cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh boy, this is about to be a
    WP:TRAINWRECK isn't it? Will go through and figure out which appear in this alternate target and which don't, later, if someone else doesn't beat me to the punch. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Okay, here we go!
Extended content
The following were not found at all:
  • Gonzap
  • Hex Maniac
  • Marshal (Note: The fact that he's not under Elite Four is surprising.)
  • Pokemon Pinchers
  • Pokémon Pinchers
  • Shauntal (Note: Also expected to be under Elite Four alongside Marshal.)

The following were found at List of Pokémon anime characters#Elite Four:

  • Aaron (Pokémon)
  • Bertha (Pokémon)
  • Caitlin (Pokémon)
  • Drasna
  • Drake (Elite Four)
  • Grimsley (Pokémon)
  • Glacia (Pokémon)

The following were found at List of Pokémon anime characters#Unova Gym Leaders

  • Brycen
    Brycen (Pokémon)
  • Burgh (Pokémon)
  • Chili (Pokémon)
  • Clay (Pokémon)
  • Cress (Pokémon)
  • Drayden (Pokémon)
  • Skyla (Pokémon)

The following were found at List of Pokémon anime characters#Sinnoh Gym Leaders

  • Crasher Wake

The following were found at List of Pokémon anime characters#Kanto Frontier Brains

  • Pike Queen Lucy

The following were found at List of Pokémon anime characters#Unova Subway Bosses

  • Subway Bosses
The ones that are not found, delete, everything else, retarget to the relevant section of List of Pokémon anime characters as per Thryduulf and my own findings as listed here. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear holy gods, Convenient Discussions did NOT like trying to edit that comment, something about the formatting screwed it all up. Note to self: Never use Convenient Discussions to edit a comment with a collapsible, always edit manually, else you're going to pull the entirety of RtD into the collapsible. trout Self-trout Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
holy fuckeroni
time for some notes from further research (totally not bulbapedia)
for all the others, retarget them for now, but still don't be surprised if they end up back here if that list is ever cleaned up cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subway Bosses. Several video games have bosses in subways, in addition to the term in Pokémon apparently being more precise that "subway bosses". (No opinion on the others, but that one was really odd.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gonzap, Hex Maniac, Marshal, Pok(é)mon Pinchers, and Shauntal as unmentioned and Subway Bosses as ambiguous, retarget the rest. Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chilli (dog)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Bingo (dog)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

February 29

Gelo Racing

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

Manae

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 7#Manae

Sudoweedo

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

Laxbe

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

2024 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

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

Mother Superior

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Definition of Done

Not mentioned (or rather: not mentioned anymore) at the target page. Tea2min (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Balsera

The name Leonard Balsera is not found in the target article. Recommend deletion of redirect. A draft BLP is pending AFC review. The alternative is to include a description of the work by Balsera on the game in the History section. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leonard Balsera is also shown as the designer of Fate (role-playing game system), a source of the The Dresden Files Roleplaying Game. But again, only in the Infobox. Delete, as no single target, and providing no more value than what a search would provide. Jay 💬 16:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of "Cops/COPS/C.O.P.S." episodes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 13#List of "Cops/COPS/C.O.P.S." episodes

Steve Villines

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

Phone

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep.

Ramon Morla

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 19:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Job growth

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

February 20

B-rail

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

Hui (animal)

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

Dada (Ultra monster) and etc.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Dada (Ultra monster) and etc.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years

I deleted this page as a G6, and it was requested that I instead formally nominate it for RfD.

There does not need to be a redirect here. I manually retargeted every incoming link when I retitled this page last October. There is no way for someone to access this internal Signpost page from Wikipedia. There are no inbound links from other websites that I know of. There is nobody trying to access this page. The existence of this redirect provides no benefit and creates additional burden for maintenance of the Signpost, as it is yet another one-off exception that has to be written into every script and template that uses this directory, every external tool that works off a list of pages, et cetera, et cetera. Every additional piece of special-case whoopsie-doozie only-used-for-one-page-ever code increases the maintenance burden for myself, as well as every future maintainer of the Signpost codebase -- there have to be extra lines of code to deal with this single anomalous redirect, and everybody who deals with the code (to modify it, to replace it, to add a feature or to remove an existing one) must spend time going over these additional lines.

The page title got about 16 views total in the months of November and December; a good number of those were probably from me as I was delinking it from other pages. The rest could have come from anywhere; people click on entries in the deletion log, web scrapers give normal browser user agents, et cetera.

The structure of the /Archives/ directory is very simple: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/ contains yearly archive pages. It does not contain anything else. The index page for these yearly archive pages is located at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives. There is no need to have a separate /Years subpage. That's why we don't have one -- it's just at the base URL. Anyone who, for some reason (let's say someday a person clicks a link to this archive page from some external website) gets a 404 from a sub-URL can just follow the URL structure one level up and get to the place they want to be.

For further reference, there have been hundreds and hundreds of useless Signpost pages subjected to speedy deletion in the last year as I've been cleaning up the space, and consensus (whenever a discussion was required) has always been in favor of doing this. Last year someone demanded that I take these pages through formal processes, to prove with complete thoroughness that the community accepted them being deleted. The main outcome of this was that all these maintenance processes and cleanup were brought to a halt for about a month while these noms percolated through XfD, and all of them were approved, and it just consumed a lot of time (mine but also that of all the XfD participants, closers, etc). Here is a list of all of those formal nominations:

Extended content
  1. TfD; notified Headbomb (talk · contribs) 23:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. TfD; notified Headbomb (talk · contribs) 23:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. MfD
    23:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. RfD; Target: Template:Signpost/DateCountdown (notified); notified FeRDNYC (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  5. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-comments-end/preload (notified); notified Resident Mario (talk · contribs) 00:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  6. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-comments-end/commentspage (notified); notified Pretzels (talk · contribs) 00:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  7. MfD; notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Obsolete template that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  8. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-start-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  9. MfD; notified Bri (talk · contribs) 00:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  10. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-header (notified); notified Funandtrvl (talk · contribs) 00:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  11. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-header-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  12. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-start-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  13. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  14. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-start-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  15. MfD; notified Pretzels (talk · contribs) 00:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Obsolete template from 2009 that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  16. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/NAN (notified); notified Skomorokh (talk · contribs) 00:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
  17. RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom; notified Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 01:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reason: Redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for my own userspace and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.

jp×g🗯️ 05:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an {{
    WP:R#K4, redirects as a result of pagemoves should not normally be deleted without good reason due to the risks of breaking incoming links; and [l]inks that have existed for a significant length of time...should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Given that the page was at this title for over 17 years, and given the >100,000 pageviews the archive page received while at this title, it seems very plausible that offwiki links have been made to the previous archives page of a notable newspaper, which will be broken if this redirect is deleted. With respect to JPxG, there's no way of knowing how many external links have been made to a page, so the statement that there are none from other websites that [they] know of doesn't sway me towards deletion.
    I'm unfamiliar with the Signpost's scripts/templates/external tools and why this page would need to be filtered from them, but I don't think we should be deleting pages on the basis that they will break scripts - we should be building tools around the wiki, not the wiki around the tools. Especially in this case, I don't believe that that is a sufficient reason on its own to delete a redirect when such a deletion might cause harm (in this case, as a result of dead external links). Regarding the previous nominations, I believe that this page is substantially different to the previously nominated redirects, for the reasons I explained in a DRV comment in response to the list. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Forgive me for a moment of bluntness, but I don't expect you to be familiar with the Signpost's scripts, templates, and tools. Nobody is: furthermore, nearly everyone who tries to maintain them eventually becomes burnt out and stops. It's great to think "we should be building tools" in a particular way; if you would like to take a few months refactoring the Signpost's dozens of templates and scripts to reflect this philosophy, I'd love to bring you up to speed at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Technical. But I do not expect that. What I would appreciate is that, if the person who maintains a codebase repeatedly says "doing this thing will cause a hassle and require additional spaghetti code to handle the stupid one-off edge case", you did not respond with "well I didn't look at any of the code but I bet it wouldn't".
You have not articulated any reasonable way in which this "might cause harm". I have shown the pageviews: immediately after the page was retitled, they dropped to nothing. What is the hypothetical situation in which this causes harm? If somebody clicks a link to the archive page at the old location (virtually nobody has done this, but they might, hypothetically)... they get a "Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact name" message, and then directly below the page's header, there's a prominently-placed blue link back to the correct location. The page's URL is also obviously formatted in a way that lets you go one level up. But even the situation with somebody sitting there is unlikely. In reality, those pageviews are almost certainly background noise from web scrapers and clicks on the deletion log, and pages (if there were any) which referenced them from an external site either didn't exist or were updated very quickly. The major problem facing the Signpost is not that we're losing a couple pageviews per month to someone who clicks a link to a relocated page and can't figure out how to click up to the main Signpost page and find the archives link from there: it's that we're losing thousands of pageviews per month due to lacking features other newspapers have, having things render incorrectly, et cetera. I have been spending a lot of time on coding stuff, and I haven't written an article myself in ages.
The biggest actual issue the Signpost faces is that everything is built on twenty years of quick fixes and workarounds and weird one-off edge cases. Implementing a new feature (i.e. having bylines on the front page, having images on the front page, retrieving the lost subheadings for ten years of articles) pretty much always requires me to climb over a pile of "one little edge case"s. I realize that for you, "one little edge case" from a random redirect in a directory it doesn't belong in may not seem like a big deal, but they add up quickly for me, especially when there are thousands of Signpost pages to keep track of across multiple namespaces.
I don't think that "Russell's teapot might have a Signpost URL written on the bottom" justifies a blanket prohibition on relocating or renaming Signpost pages unless a full copy of the 2007 directory structure (or the 2013 directory structure, or for that matter the 2022 directory structure) is preserved with redirects on top of the new locations in the same place and in the same namespace. I really don't think it's reasonable to have an open-source software project -- note that the Signpost's software structure is not in fact distinct from its content structure -- where maintainers have to spend weeks writing persuasive essays to justify every time they move a file. jp×g🗯️ 20:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
linkrot left behind by doing so might be a problem for future readers, though.
All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 05:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not need you to admire me; I just want you to not actively prevent me from fixing technical debt.

It's a lot of text because I am the editor-in-chief and primary technical maintainer of the Signpost, and you are asking that maintenance be subordinated to individual committee discussions on each page based on some entirely hypothetical notion that somebody might click on a page link and you think the text that tells them to go somewhere else isn't big enough.

The text that's displayed, when the page tells somebody that the resource has been moved, is not big enough. Can you explain why this -- in the current situation -- justifies adding a page to the directory permanently, without simply gesturing to a guideline?

You say that there were "100,000 views over the course of its life", but in reality there were 16 views (including me viewing the page) the month after it was moved. The number we should be discussing is less than sixteen. These less-than-sixteen page loads the month after the page was moved is the thing that you are requesting that I be forced to write additional code (and permanently make the directory structure more useful) in order to handle.

In a comment below, I have explained how this kind of thing messes up queries and scripts. Yes -- I understand -- it can be worked around. I understand this. I am saying that working around it requires additional lines of code to be crammed into everything that handles it, and makes the overall codebase incrementally more difficult to deal with.

Since the Signpost is entirely a volunteer project, and technical maintenace on the Signpost is a subset of an already-niche area of the project, adding arbitrary "trivial" obstacles to doing it results in even fewer people being willing or able to undertake it. I do not enjoy doing this anymore; I am extremely burnt-out, and discussions like this are the main reason why. You may think you are heroically maintaining the legibility of the archives to future generations. That's fine. But it was technical maintenance that retrieved all the previously-inaccessible subheadings from articles between 2011 and 2023; it was code that got every article from 2005 to the present indexed in the module; it was code that made it possible to read the archives in full. If you want to create arbitrary roadblocks to technical maintenance, and you think it's extremely easy to write and maintain all the scripts for the project within a directory structure that's forced to be confusing and redundant, please feel free to do that. jp×g🗯️ 17:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged here by something, probably one of the deleted/obsolete pages. I think JPxG should have some leeway to do the cleanup deemed necessary. The Signpost archives are a bit of a mess. I don't care about saving any prior archive layout or any legacy scripts/templates. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: See my comment above; I've tried to explain how inconsistent directory structures can cause issues. jp×g🗯️ 17:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that many of the past deletions and likely future ones have been and will likely continue to be useful maintenance. However, in this case it does seem that there is benefit to retaining the page as a redirect or some other sort of landing page with an explanation. If queries into the article count show a single (or even a few extra) articles than there really are, that doesn't seem too bad (and it seems there is a technical solution). I also sympathize with attempting to cleanup something that has, shall we say, unique challenges in this format. However much I tend to seemingly agree with A smart kitten, I always try to keep the
bicycle-shed effect in mind, so I guess I will go down to the elusive 'medium keep' (certainly not feeling strong or weak, but slightly less than a normal keep). When redirects should be kept and deleted, especially after moves, is an oft misunderstood concept. If some of the other regulars at this venue are persuaded, I may reconsider, but for right now I'm pretty firmly where I am at. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I do think there is currently enough of a consensus to keep, I want to give this more time to play out based on the nominator and their rational.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I'm confused - the last three !votes have been to keep. I'm not seeing how there's currently consensus to delete. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 19:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @A smart kitten, I wrote it backwards. I've corrected this mistake. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My first Wikipedia edit in a long time as I was pinged on this as the original creator of some subset of the pages under discussion. I don't understand why something that is clearly administrative in nature requires a wall of text of justifications to satisfy old-timers obsessed with pedantic details of links you can't even prove exist. ResMar 05:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there are arguments against the deletion of this redirect which mean it is not purely administrative in nature - if it was, this discussion wouldn't exist. My reasons for !voting to keep it are outlined above. (Also, to be clear, no pages created by yourself are nominated here.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 03:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would ask that the closer of this discussion considers taking into account the unintentional notifications caused by a list of previous XfD nominations being copied into this one, which seems to have pinged the original creators of those Signpost-related pages. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 06:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The underlying purpose for keeping an r from move, per the template info at Template:R from move, is: "to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." More often than not when it pertains to mainspace articles, incoming links are a valid concern. But when it comes to switching from one internal archiving system to another, success is measured from a fresh start. As the person who's seemingly undertaken the reallotment of the Signpost archives, I trust Jpxg's judgement here (as the editor-in-chief of the Signpost, which this redirect falls under) and see no reason to keep this leftover which will have zero benefit as an "r from move", which is invisible to all after the updating of 100% of links, and only more struggles and headaches for the people that actually deal with this on a regular basis, i.e. Signpost regulars. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes and jpxg. The falloff in traffic noted by jpxg suggests that there are few, if any, links pointing people to this page that would be broken by this change. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with Utopes – volunteers working on Signpost should be relatively free in management of pages their readership uses to access what Signpost volunteers produced. Someone looking for archives of the Signpost surely won't be discouraged by a deleted, weirdly named "Years" subpage; they won't have trouble finding the archives, e.g. by reading the footer Explore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives on the front page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar 2023

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

List of "Cops/COPS/C.O.P.S." episodes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 29#List of "Cops/COPS/C.O.P.S." episodes

January 6 hostage crisis

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

List of Cogs

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Philippines Disputed Territories

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn/retarget to Territories claimed by the Philippines.

Template:R from project

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

1792 presidential election

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

February 10

Penarth (Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn and etc.

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

Novoarkhanglesk

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

Rainbow Coalition (Ireland 1992)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Rainbow Coalition (Ireland 1992)

-Ose

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Objection!

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Kingdom Hearts II KeyBlade INFO

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

King Henry died drinking chocolate milk

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

Saeter

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Yeezus 2

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Alien 2

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 10#Alien 2 Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DAC2

"DAC" does not appear anywhere at the target article, much less DAC2. I did a lot of searches for this term and everything has come up blank; I do not understand this redirect. There's

DAC 2015 for a Dota 2 championship, as well as DAC (disambiguation), but I don't think the current target is a good fit. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I’ll amend the CRS article to reflect this. Djw001 (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree with the hatnote: there's no mention of DAC2 at the targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is (still) no mention at the target and without it this redirect is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{
    R without mention}} so Djw001 or another editor can add mention to the CRS article. Jay 💬 09:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck in favour of Utopes. Jay 💬 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently confusing, we've had almost a month at RfD and nobody has been inspired to do anything about the lack of mention - if it doesn't happen now then it never will. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery. It's now been a month since this was nominated and there is still no mention of this term anywhere in the encyclopaedia that I can find, so this redirect is unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment,, Djw001's only edit of 2024 was in January, where they said they would add something here. They have not made any edits for nearly 2 months now. Whenever they add something that could warrant DAC2 incoming, the redirect could be recreated, depending on the material. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Whyte School

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Justice League: Crisis on Infinite Earths - Part One (redirect)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 17:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Webware

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate Webware, retarget the rest

Ultra short-term memory

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

Misleading “o” Bayer designations

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

Neurodiversity movement

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Serge Blanc (violonist)

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

Galactose 1-dehydrogenase

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Set Index