Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 5 15 20
TfD 0 0 2 2 4
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 0 27 27
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, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss 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[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut
  • 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?[edit]


Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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

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

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in 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 CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

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[edit]

Shortcut
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[edit]

Shortcuts

April 18[edit]

Community of Geometry Dash[edit]

Nothing about a "community" mentioned, very unlikely to be a search term. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muttering Idiot[edit]

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

Modmin[edit]

No mention of this term at the target article. Almost assuredly has a plethora of other uses outside of... just Fark. The portmanteau of "mod" and "admin" is likely to come up in a number of other more relevant contexts related to moderation and administration. Cautiously though, this term has zero mentions on all Wikipedia, so I'm hesitant to just "retargeting and calling it good". Utopes (talk / cont) 06:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimoid[edit]

No mention of this novel feature(?), aspect? mentioned at the target article. Has three other mentions on Wikipedia in different contexts, also Mimoides exists with a number of subarticles on species. Not currently a useful redirect without context at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was linking it to the wrong page it was supposed to link to Aniara, not Solaris (novel).Mechachleopteryx (talk)

I was linking to the wrong page[edit]

That might be typical, but it is the lack of mention of the word Mimoid in the article that made me make the redirect. If someone searchs for the term, they will be lead to the article. The solution is to mention them in the Article as they were a critical part of the book.

I understand that the book was written in Swedish, so other translators might have used a different word. If someone finds a different word used, but it is still unique to Aniara, then they could make a redirect to the article, where a standard term can be referred on.

If someone encounters the concept, it is highly likely that it is from Aniara and yet without the redirect, neither human nor bot would know that the word is associated with the book, and since as far as I know it is not associated with another novel. I had not fully completed reading the story yet when I made the link.

My intention is to add further discussion to the article, using the word, but I hoped the redirect would help others find the article. I also think it is worthy of an article in its own right, so if someone is really ambitious they can turn it into an article.

It doesn't refer to the moth. The reasons you are giving are why I made the redirect.

I don't think I need to make a list of all of the alien races and species that have a page on wikipedia. In the case where it doesn't refer to a dictionary word or a concept used in other novels, then it should be uncontroversial.

The moth name is pronounced meemo-eedays not mimoids, if someone types Mimoid I assume they are searching for the concept from Aniara, and it right now similarity search leads to you to the moth, when the page you are looking for is Aniara.

I think I might have directed it to the wrong page, it was supposed to link to Aniara not Solaris (novel).

Mechachleopteryx (talk)

Mental gymnastics[edit]

I had to do some serious mental gymnastics to wrap my head around why this redirect exists. Sure, some people may perform mental gymnastics when "they're uncomfortable from their beliefs being inconsistent and contradictory". A similar idea I feel could be people perform the act of running to get from Point A to Point B, although that doesn't make the "running" a good redirect to "pathfinding". It's a singular mean to the end, and not everyone that has cognitive dissonance is "performing mental gymnastics", and not everyone that does mental gymnastics has cognitive dissonance. Example: I'm fairly sure I'm performing mental gymnastics right now in an attempt to jump through the logical hoops that went into this redirect, and I don't think I'm too uncomfortable from cognitive dissonance. I believe I've come to understand why, although I don't think it's a great end-all-be-all redirect that takes people to the right location at 100% intentions every time. To me, I feel like Convergent thinking or Divergent thinking are what I would have associated mental gymnastics with, i.e. following along with someone's thought process jumping through hoops with twists and turns to an eventual endpoint. Also, "mental gymnastics" is not mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PanoramaMaker[edit]

There is no information about a panorama maker at the target stub, much less a brand called PanoramaMaker. Not currently a helpful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TotalMedia Theatre[edit]

No mention of TotalMedia or TotalMedia Theatre at the target article. This is not a helpful redirect as there is no content about this subtopic, and the stub for ArcSoft does not help enlighten readers here. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaImpression[edit]

No mention of MediaImpression at the target page. Neither this, nor "ArcSoft MediaImpression" are useful redirects in the article's current state, as we have no information at the stub for this subtopic. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manta (Unreal Tournament)[edit]

No character (?) that uses the name Manta appears at the target article; this does not appear to be a useful redirect in its current state. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man’s red fire / flower[edit]

Pretty confused by this redirect; neither the word "man's", nor the phrase "red fire" appear at the target article. Not sure why someone would type this instead of the very likely alternative of searching for just "Fire"; this title does not seem useful as a redirect. Neither have any links or mentions on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A man has fallen into a river in Lego City[edit]

A meme not mentioned at the target article. For anyone that wanted to read about Lego City, Lego City is the perfectly natural search term. Prefacing it with the meme line from the Lego City commercial implies an interest in the man falling into the river in Lego City. Unfortunately, the man is nowhere to be found in the river, much as this line is nowhere to be found in the article. Not a helpful redirect in the article's current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making televsion[edit]

Implausible typo for the unmentioned search term of "Making television", which is already a roundabout way of reaching the target article. Errors in "avoided double redirects" are even more unlikely than errors in a page's actual title, and the misspelling coupled with the "making" verb pretense makes this too far out to salvage. Making television didn't use to exist, this probably could have been moved with redirect suppression as the original was initially aired as implausible in its former state. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make Me A World[edit]

There is no mention of this imprint at the target article. "Make" and "A World" are not ever mentioned at the target article. As it stands, people who specifically search for the imprint instead of the publishing house itself are left without any context to the phrase that they typed in. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maha (cat)[edit]

There is no cat called "Maha" discussed at the target. Moreover, there is no character called Maha discussed there, or at the associated List of .hack characters. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic air car[edit]

No mention of anything about a magnetic air car at the general-ish page for hybrid vehicles. As it stands, if people really wanted to search for hybrid vehicles, one would have used that search term outright. Specifying a magnetic air car and ending up at a page about hybrid vehicles in general is not a useful redirect for readers as it currently stands. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there's an article in the history about a theoretical compressed-air vehicle which used a magnetic motor to compress the air for propulsion, rather than needing to be refuelled with compressed air. It was not a hybrid vehicle by our definition as it had only one source of power for propulsion. It also was never built: there was some hype about it about 10 years ago (around the same age as the article) and some patents filed, but then it vanished. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fucktarded[edit]

Salt evasion of Fucktard. Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I disagree that this is salt evasion, there was 5 years between the deletion of the salted title and the creation of the new one, and the creator never edited the original. The original page was salted because it was only being used for vandalism, while the new title was created explicitly with a target in mind. However, the term should be removed from the target: the one source given that's not paywalled happens to mention the word, but with no context other than an odd story about gluten sensitivity. Wikipedia is not censored but we are also not offensive for no reason; maybe Fucktard could be recreated as a Wiktionary redirect (wikt:fucktard exists) but this modified title should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance goal[edit]

Not mentioned at the target page. Tea2min (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wiktionary redirect to wikt:insurance goal. There it's given in the context of soccer but it's the same meaning. Preferable to adding it back to the list of hockey terms since it also applies to other sports. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add back to the list, or delete per WP:REDYES for both the soccer/football and hockey terms. This search for "insurance goal on Wikipedia returns a surprising amount of articles that mention the phrase for its soccer/football and hockey uses, but surprisingly none of the results are articles that define the term. For this reason, the phrase seems notable enough in some regard to be included and defined either in an existent article or a standalone article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The term has not yet been added back to the list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey bag[edit]

Not mentioned anymore at target page Glossary of ice hockey terms. (Which used to say "a duffel bag for hockey equipment" but was cleaned up in 2011.) Tea2min (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Holdall, which is the target of gym bag, and which notes that it is also known as a sports bag in UK English although Sports bag does not exist. It does not discuss hockey, though. Our article ice hockey equipment does not describe bags, and duffel bag doesn't mention hockey; I haven't found anything better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:27, 10 April 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 💬 05:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Macko[edit]

Macko is not listed at the page for this shooting. What I will note, is that looking up "Nikolas Macko", the shooting almost didn't come up on the first page (was the very last result for me)" This might make sense as it took place in 2007, and as time progresses, older results are less likely to be promoted higher. But in any event, we have no content on this individual. In 2007, they attempted to fend off the shooting from taking place. But, these efforts are not described anywhere on the page or on Wikipedia, to my understanding. I don't think that this is a particularly useful redirect, in the article's current state. Just as Google displays a wide assortment of topics related to different "Nikolas Macko"s, if he isn't discussed in the article any longer, I don't think this redirect is necessary either. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it should be worth noting, this redirect was fully protected almost IMMEDIATELY after creation in 2007, and remained fully protected for another 17 years up until just a month ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Thomas (That's So Raven)[edit]

No mention of a character called Lynn Thomas at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Quebec[edit]

No information about Lower Quebec at the target article. Doing a spot check for other locations around the world, I could not find Lower Foobar ever be a redirect to Foobar, as the specification of lower almost certainly implies a different, undiscussed topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look how they massacred my boy[edit]

This redirect is categorized as follows: A meme quotation from film and television, that is not mentioned at the article. Wikipedia is not an infinite compendium of unmentioned memes. Not a helpful redirect as people who want to read about The Godfather would search for The Godfather. Specifying a meme implies a search for specific content that we don't have on WP. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, how often do people search for films via quotes? Regardless a simple search engine search will tell them the film's title and they can search for the title from there. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long life motor oil[edit]

People searching for motor oil that is specifically long life are likely looking for material on a specific topic that we don't cover. Similarly to people who specify Ultra short-term memory, the "long life" qualifier seems to indicate an undiscussed unmentioned variant. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - the target does discuss innovations meant to extend the service intervals for motor oils, and summarizes some information on types of motor oil engineered with long life as a consideration (e.g. synthetic oil), although it does not use the term "long life" at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Living foods diet[edit]

There's no context about the idea of "living foods" at the target article, and mentions across Wikipedia are rough all around. Indeed, Living foods is a red link as it stands as well. Without any further context about this particular diet, it does not serve as a very useful redirect in the meantime if readers are left looking for material we don't have, it seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO - Google reveals many different diet fads trying to rebrand as "living foods", most of it pseudoscientific bunk. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid nails[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Lower case version of what's apparently a brand of glue...? Adhesive? In any case, liquid nails are not mentioned at the target, and anyone typing this in instead of adhesive seems to be looking for something else. Has some history, but has also been to RfD before (13 years ago). Utopes (talk / cont) 05:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Yu-jeong (singer)[edit]

No singer with this name is discussed at the target article. Does not help to redirect here, suggesting content that we do not have. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Lightsum. Note that members of South Korean K-pop group rarely uses their full name in their promotion, it is always without the surname or a stage name. I created it before Lightsum was published in mainspace but forgotten to retarget. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave The Light On (Johnny Orlando song)[edit]

No song with this title discussed at the target article, not a helpful redirect in its current state. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamb Chop (The Sheep-Pig)[edit]

No character with this name discussed at the target article. Not helpful as a redirect in its current state. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Godiva syndrome[edit]

Lady Godiva is never mentioned or referred to at the target article. Redirect a hyper-specific reference to an apparent synonym where it never is talked about is not very helpful. People looking for exhibitionism would have gotten to that point through just searching Exhibitionism. The current title might just be more helpful pointed at Lady Godiva, if anything, as the presence of a name within the title makes it seem like the name is the most defining aspect. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of imagination[edit]

A lack of imagination isn't an "argument from ignorance". It's not being able to imagine and doesn't have to do with arguments. If anything, it's Aphantasia. However, this has been a redirect here for the last 21 years. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hlist1[edit]

The existence of this redirect implies that there are multiple {{hlist}} templates (e.g. {{hlist1}} and {{hlist2}}), but that is not the case. (And, as far as I can tell, has never been the case.) Delete as actively misleading. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom seems reasonable. Sdkb talk 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, not transcluded anywhere (only linked in page alerts related to this RfD, in {{hlist}}'s documentation, or in transclusions of the RfD page). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 17[edit]

Moira Sullivan (Smallville)[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While not directly mentioned with the surname, the character Moira is mentioned at Smallville season 6#ep128, though only appears in that one episode. The character's name in full is listed at Lynda Carter#Filmography and Superman (franchise)#Recurring cast, so I would suggest retarget to that episode description or to Lynda Carter's article, though leaning closer to the episode description as it does offer more details on this character and Carter's role than the other two sections do. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Trailblazer101, as the character is mentioned at the target. Given the disambiguator it makes more sense to target the TV season article than the other suggested targets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Baldwin (Coronation Street)[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Linda Baldwin is an alternative name for Linda Sykes listed at the target article. While the name was updated at some point in the list (it used to say Baldwin), the redirect was not. Now updated. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, maybe refine target to the Linda Sykes section. This didn't need to be relisted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez[edit]

  • Jeez → wiktionary:Special:Search/jeez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

When I nominated this title in 2015 (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12#Jeez), the result was "delete", even though I had suggested redirecting to the Wiktionary page, which existed when I created the discussion in 2015. Of course, this does not make this redirect eligible for WP:G4 since the redirect did not target Wiktionary back then, but no participants, besides myself, had voted for retargeting to Wiktionary. For this reason, I'm bringing this up for discussion to see if the redirect should be re-deleted, kept in its current form, or something else. (For consistency's sake, I support the previous consensus ... "delete".) Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; seems harmless enough and gets you to the right target. I'm unsure why Wiktionary lists "Jeez" as an alternate spelling of "Geez", and then turns around and defines "Geez" as a minced oath for "Jesus"-- the minced oath part is correct, but I'd think that "Jeez" would be the primary spelling, given it's closer to the spelling of "Jesus". Maybe "Geez" is older or something?
Interestingly enough, Geez actually redirects to Ge'ez, aka Classical Ethiopian, with not a single mention of a minced oath (though it does hatnote to Geez (magazine).) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay[edit]

Salt evasion of Oncotype_DX. Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this was accepted through AfC in 2012 and BLAR'd in 2017, while Oncotype DX was salted at the same time in 2017, so not salt evasion. Unless there was something visible in the deleted histories that you saw, @Pppery:. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. That matches what I can see. Still not mentioned at the target, though, so should still be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't salt evasion then, it should be restored and sent to AfD if non-notable, as this is an article which made it through AfC by User:Graeme Bartlett and survived as a standalone topic for years, before being BLAR'd into a page without mention. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero landing[edit]

Page has no (non-tangentially) relevant content. If someone can find a page that talks about these then I'd support a retarget, but for now, I'm leaning delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm most familiar with the term from the Deadpool films but none of our series of related articles mentions this, and it's not specific enough to this franchise for a {{R without mention}}. The phrase appears in Carrot and Stick, an episode of Better Call Saul, but doesn't describe what it is at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrot and stick? I don't think reliable sources analyzed the title. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drama Juniors Marathi[edit]

No mention of any programming with this title at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jau Bai Gavat Unseen[edit]

This seems to be a piece of programming, although it is not mentioned or discussed at the target article, and creates the picture that we have something about this topic when we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basilan Unity Party[edit]

No mention of "Unity" or this party at the target page, people searching for this topic will not receive any information about this at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Asenso Abrenio is another example of an undiscussed party that was recently deleted. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I luv u[edit]

With multiple pages on the I Love You page that spell love as "luv", someone's anal tattoo is certainly not the primary topic for a shortened version of the most common phrase in the English language. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to I Love You. This is clearly not the main use of the term. There are also entries on that page with this spelling. Kk.urban (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hornless unicorn[edit]

Unicorns are not real. The article makes no mention of unicorns. It would be impossible for a hornless unicorn to be a horse because that would require a fictional creature variant to be real, which it is not and never will be. The target page does not mention unicorns in the slightest. Anyone that specifies "unicorn" instead of "horse" is likely looking for a unicorn related subtopic, instead of the general WP:SYNTH explanation for horse. Unicorn, Unicorn horn, or deletion are all preferable outcomes for this title which currently exists unmentioned at the horse page. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's a valid search term, regardless of unicorns being fictional. One of the first things I found when searching was a definition on Urban Dictionary, as well as a number of images in which people refer to their horses as hornless unicorns. Using this logic, I do believe you should have also nominated horse with a horn (which points to unicorn). We also have horned horse and magic horse for consideration. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are fine titles. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. People searching for the unmentioned "horses are hornless unicorns" meme will not receive any content at the target page, so that's another reason why a redirect would be harmful to those readers. At least with Unicorn and Unicorn horn, people can get context as to the crucial adjective of "hornless" in their search term, especially when the Horse article mentions neither "hornless" nor "unicorn". For all other cases you've provided, the article on Unicorn actually does a DEEP dive into those topics. "Magic" and "magical" comes up a bunch, and the topic of "horns" is thrown around in basically every paragraph. Nobody is confused when they type in a fictional phrase (i.e. "magic horse") and end up at a fictional article (unicorns). The same is not true of the inverse. The horned and magic horse redirects should be kept. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about urban dictionary being a reliable source, it's about whether it's a valid search term, is relatively unambiguous, and contextually makes sense. I strongly believe, based on some searching, that hornless unicorn is synonymous with a horse and fits these criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible, and also already a stretch. Unicorns are a fictional species. Any variant of a fictional creature cannot be synonymous with a real creature. And especially for using such a specific term as "hornless unicorn", targeting "Horse" instead of a unicorn related article is original research. My childhood would be highly eager to see the reliable, published source that says that unicorns exist, in order for a hornless version to as well and justify this redirect targeting a real animal and not a mythology-related article. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OR? C'mon now. It's simply a reversal of a common description of a unicorn.
  • Unicorn's short desc on en-wiki: Legendary single-horned horse-like creature
  • Wikidata: Legendary animal, that looks like a horse with a horn on the forehead
If a horned (magical) horse is a unicorn then it's entirely reasonable to assume or draw a connection to a hornless unicorn being a horse. Again though, I urge you to do some Googling and see that it's a common thing to refer to a horse as. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just quoting what OR says: "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists.". The term "hornless unicorn" does not appear at the target page. Moreover, it does not appear ANYWHERE on Wikipedia besides one passing mention at Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. But definitely not at Horse. Even including a mention at the horse page would be wholly inappropriate there, as it's a real animal, fundamentally rooted in biology. The article isn't about how horses appear in pop culture or mythology, so unicorns shouldn't ever come up. Because we are redirecting a unicorn variation to a real animal, if there is no reliable, published source exists for this redirection-equation material, it is considered original research. Citing Urban Dictionary would also be considered original research, if no reliable, published source exists. A Google search funneling into various memes and the RuneScape wiki is also not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source that suggests that unicorns are a real thing, in order to justify the existence of hornless versions and target a real biological animal, then please let me know. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Unicorn: (would be open to other targets) my initial impression was to keep since "hornless unicorn" is commonly[by whom?] "known" to be a jokey way to refer to a horse. But, horse doesn't mention or link to unicorn and is unlikely to ever cover this term. While unicorn mentions and links to horse and says unicorns are horse-like creatures with a horn. Skynxnex (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is simply too vague, as it may refer to a horse, or a literal unicorn that lacks a horn. But, it would also be pointless to disambiguate, as DAB pages are not a search index. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:NN[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Honestly, I have no idea how this WP:XNR survived RfD. "Cat:" is not a pseudo-namespace. Looking at WP:Shortcut#List of prefixes, "Cat:" appears nowhere. It is not widely accepted, it is nowhere accepted. CAT:NN has existed since 2006. This lowercase version was created in 2020. The RfD said "keep because it is used widely in links" which is simply entirely incorrect. The search result provided then, showed usage of EXCLUSIVELY the uppercase variant. From a quantitative perspective, CAT:NN has 500+ links. Cat:NN has zero, besides the deletion notifications. If someone wants to campaign for the existence of a new lowercase "Cat" namespace, that should be done before the existence of these redirects. (Which as per Pandora's WikiBox, the existence of one has since introduced two more also bundled). Utopes (talk / cont) 18:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Misleading, found no kitties inside the namespace. More seriously, having lowerspace variants of pseudo-namespaces would be unmaintainable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I only made this two because of the existence of Cat:NN and because using caps lock sucks on phones, you're more than welcome to speedy them under author requests deletion so we don't have to drag this out for a week. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment! I was kind of confused why those two came about. A discussion seems inevitable though at minimum for Cat:NN as that was kept a few months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cat:prod averages about 2 pageviews each day, since it's convenient to just keyboard type lowercase stuff. However the search thing "redirects" capitalization already anyways Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cat:prod was created a month ago. I'm not surprised that it gets views because CAT:PROD also gets a substantial amount of views, and people type in lowercase expecting to autocorrect by the software (which it does). If redirects are meant to optimize view-numbers, we'd get rid of capitals entirely. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed adoodie[edit]

Gag name not mentioned at the target article. Additionally, I have not found any mention of it on this list (although it is user-generated and could be incomplete).

A variant of this gag name had been used in the Simpsons episode 24 Minutes according to the article, but spelt as 'Ahmed Adoudi'. Regardless, I am unsure that this joke name is notable enough to be a redirect to any articles involving this. Xeroctic (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Labour Party (historical)[edit]

A spelling variation of recently deleted Democratic Labor Party (historical). Likely not the same case as the Labor vs Labour spelling distinction has proven to represent different parties, but this disambiguation still might not be the most helpful as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and prior consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. The dab lists several entities called Democratic Labour Party which are historical (as in, not currently active). The alternate deleted title was a {{R from move}} for a title that had been around since 2003, it shouldn't have been deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heil mein Führer![edit]

Already exists in a similar form at Heil, mein Fuhrer!, not sure if this iteration would be useful. Deauthorized. (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. This version hasn't been around long enough to establish much pageview history, but the version with comma has been around since 2015. That one scored 7 pageviews in all of 2023. Still, this version isn't obviously harmful and so I don't see why it should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. It is plausible that someone could omit the comma. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both versions are basically accurate. Kk.urban (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joever[edit]

Per WP:SSRT. Do we really need to include such 4-chan internet slang with no encyclopedic value, a "word" not used in any articles? Fram (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as creator per WP:CHEAP. Duckmather (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's not joever til it's joever, and that entry is goated with the sauce
...apologies for whatever that was, and for the somewhat hidden pun. keep as there are sources cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.3[edit]

Non-existent version of Windows, in fact, Windows 8.2 doesn't exist either. Not the first time this happens, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Draft:Windows 8.4 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Draft:Windows 8.25 for previous speedy deletes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 exist. There is an 8.3 filename page you could retarget this to if you really wanted to as it is from Windows but I don't think that would be helpful. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten News First Late[edit]

Inaccurate names inconsistent with current and former usage. Particularly the combination of "Ten Late News and Sports Tonight", in reality a branded sports segment within the main program. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 13:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

From previous discussions (in 2013 and 2016), three pages have come up as potential valid redirect targets for this page, List of lists of lists, Wikipedia:Contents/Lists, and Category:Lists.

The current target, List of lists of lists, is in the same namespace, but it's not a complete "list of lists" as not all lists on Wikipedia are listed in "Lists of X" articles, and it's a "list of lists of lists" rather than a direct "list of lists." Next, Wikipedia:Contents/Lists has an approachable format and it's a "list of lists" rather than a "list of lists of lists," but it is also incomplete. And finally, Category:Lists is a complete "list of lists," but it's a category.

I propose that a disambiguation page be created containing these three pages as they all have their pros and cons, making none of them suitable as the sole redirect target. – BrandonXLF (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death is a preferable alternative to communism[edit]

This isn't mentioned in the slightest in the target article. I assume it's a game quote but given the total lack of sourcing, a redirect such as this is confusing and should be deleted. Try Wikiquote instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's a quote in the game, popular among people who think it "goes hard" and love missing the point and context of lines like this. plenty of hits, though, i won't deny
my opinion mirrors that of the gorbino's quest rfd a few days ago. keep if a mention can be made, weak delete otherwise
for possible sources, i uhhhh
found this? not gonna comment on its reliability because i'm not a fallout nerd (yet) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is indeed a quote from Liberty Prime, a giant robot who throws full-size nuclear bombs like footballs while spouting off anti-communist propaganda slogans. Given Liberty Prime is afforded all of one sentence in this article (merely attesting to its existence and role in the story), it's probably safe to delete this. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ductal[edit]

Ductal is a product of Lafarge but isn't mentioned on the article at all. The redirect exists due to a 2015 deletion discussion of the article [1], I believe a redirect to duct would be better given ductal is the adjectivial form of duct. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer)[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct World[edit]

I noticed several redirects at RfD disambiguated with Extinct World - The Lich, BMO, Ice King, Gunter, etc., and wanted to know what this is. However, this too turned out to be a redirect which led to an episode which had no information about the term.

The episode plot has a link to Finn the Human and Jake the Dog which has a mention of extinction of all life, but this too is insufficient to justify a redirect like Extinct World which is a generic term (not considering the caps). Delete. Jay 💬 05:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jay. The name "Extinct World" is fan-dubbed and is not ever mentioned in the show; even if it was, I doubt the notability and necessity of the supposed redirect and it may too trivial. I believe the name is too general and it is totally possible that it can refer to something more notable. Delete. - George6VI (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Animals in Media[edit]

XNR to non-template. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National culture[edit]

"National culture" is mentioned on the target page, but it isn't a subhead, and this seems to me to be a strange article to redirect this to. I'm not sure someone who searches for "national culture" will understand why they're on this page. I'm not excited about any of the alternatives I considered (Nationalism?), maybe someone here has a better idea? asilvering (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Cultural nationalism? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze, everybody clap your hands![edit]

The addition of "Freeze" means that it can't be confused with Live at Tokyo Dome, but despite that, without a mention of this lyric, we don't have anything for readers that search the specific lyric of "everybody clap your hands" instead of the song itself. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fil d'Ecosse[edit]

Created with the edit summary of "red". Might've been a solution to a red link at the time? No pages link to this title, and neither "fil" nor "ecosse" appear at the target article. Apparently an alternate language, the only mention of "fil d'ecosse" on Wikipedia is as a cotton variation, i.e. Cotton lisle, or "fil d'ecosse cotton". Utopes (talk / cont) 23:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the term is written in French, so if borrowed back into English, that would make sense if it originated in the French city of Lille (Lisle). This cotton thread is mercerised (gone through mercerisation),[2][3] a process invented by John Mercer, someone of Scottish heritage [4] . This "Fil d'Ecosse" == Scottish thread. Also seems to be used in Scottish cotton goods. So, the correct target would seem to be Cotton lisle. Cotton lisle needs updating to mention mercization [5] -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cotton lisle, where the term is at least mentioned, though that article could indeed do with being expanded. Also note that there is another redirect Fil d'Écosse (with correct French capitalisation of the diacritic) created at the same time as this one and that should be kept in sync with it. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factor through[edit]

Neither "factor" nor "through" are mentioned at the target article. Hypothetically this seems to be much more plausible as a redirect to Factoring or Factorization, but even then this may not be incredibly necessary for either... Utopes (talk / cont) 21:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Factoring through" is a mathematical English idiom for situations in which the Fundamental theorem on homomorphisms applies. See, e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (one site but many users); it likely also appears in standard abstract algebra texts, e.g. Dummit and Foote, or Lang; and some quick Ctrl+F's show that Pete Clark's expositions use the term, although never with a clear definition. It is certainly unfortunate that this usage does not appear on the current target, although I think this is a flaw in that page and not the redirect.
I do not think Factoring or Factorization are appropriate retargets. Those appear to mainly discuss decompositions as some sort of explicit product, which cannot in general be done for quotient objects (unless you count a short exact sequence as a "product"). Moreover, they focus on integers and polynomials. If I have ever heard the phrase "factor through" applied to numbers, I do not remember it. On the other hand, I may have heard distribution in polynomial arithmetic described that way.
A less surprising target might be Glossary of mathematical jargon § factor through, although I personally find that target less useful (for one thing, the phrase is hardly restricted to "category theory"; for another, the definition fails to make the connection to the Fundamental Theorem explicit). Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Hodge[edit]

Not discussed at target with sufficient substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with other similar redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Larissa Hodge, we have information on this person and it's found at this target. It doesn't matter that it's very little information - this is what we have and that's where it is. Delete the others as they are unsourced alternates and nicknames and also not described at the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 16[edit]

Watch channel[edit]

Move to either Watch (channel) or Watch (TV channel) without leaving an additional redirect. Okmrman (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Windows 8.25[edit]

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

DSRL[edit]

  • DSRL → Oreo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
  • Dsrl → Oreo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Delete. Acronym not mentioned at target. Both redirects are edit protected, which is why I couldn't tag them. CycloneYoris talk! 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the deleted history: "DSRL is a sport which includes the famous Oreo cookie. Or commonly know [sic] as 'Double Stuffed Racing League'." Followed by a bunch of rules of the sport. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dsrl. Delete as a long-forgotten ad gimic of some sort. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entire (animal)[edit]

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

Sam Malone (DJ)[edit]

Sam Malone no longer works for KSEV and I am not sure if there is enough to put together a standalone article for him or his current self-produced show. spryde | talk 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There was really no reason in the redirect even before. --Викидим (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012: Doomsday[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The F-Bomb (documentary)[edit]

No evidence the current target is referred to as "The F bomb". Could just as reasonably refer to The F Word (2005 film), but there's no evidence that's called this either. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kannagi (upcoming film)[edit]

This film released just about 4 months ago and is no longer upcoming. Plenty of time has past to the point that there is no more confusion for a 2023 movie, as it's well into 2024 now. Nobody ending up here who sees "upcoming film" in the title would be surprised by it's removal for a movie releasing last year. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The beach that makes you old[edit]

Related meme not mentioned at target. Implausible to be searched on Wikipedia, not including people going onto Google and asking "what's the beach that makes you old", after which point one would find the source film for the topic; also, the Wikipedia page pops up there too. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even as a meme, there is no mention of the meme on the film article, so this is just a joke re-direct that doesn't really help anyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Airport[edit]

This is an inaccurate redirect. Paradise Airport is a small airfield in Paradise, California, nowhere near Paradise, Nevada (and nowhere near the size or importance of Las Vegas' international airport). Mistaken redirect that should just be deleted; the airport itself is non-notable so its article was converted to redirect in 2022. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as potentially confusing, per WP:R#DELETE item 2. As well as the California "Paradise airport" indicated by the nom [13], there's another in New York state [14], but neither seem to be notable. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Paradise Skypark on which we have an article. It is unclear from the nomination which is the airport article being referred to that was converted to a redirect in 2022. Jay 💬 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winged spear[edit]

Between Corseque, Spetum, and the fact that this redirect is not mentioned in the current target, it's not clear which subject readers are desiring to locate when searching this term. (However, used to be a section at Polearm#Winged spear, a section which was present in 2012, but was removed at some point that year.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit the Bohemian Earspoon is not the most obvious redirect. Winged spears are probably ancestral to the spetum and corseque too. If I were to plump for one, it would probably be spetum. But there is an argument that a separate article or article section on the weapon would ultimately be preferable. Be hard to make it above a start though. Monstrelet (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Dollar[edit]

Not a synonym for this brand, and not useful as a search term. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a plausible word swap for someone unfamiliar with the name of the establishment. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link baiting[edit]

Deletion, link baiting differs from clickbait to the degree that the redirect is misleading. Link baiting does not have the deceptive nature of clickbait. [1] Acalc79 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=9WE1AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT112&dq=%22linkbaiting%22&hl=&cd=2&source=gbs_api#v=onepage&q=%22linkbaiting%22&f=false
I don't suppose I could ask how you're defining "link baiting?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
apparently, the difference is the target demographic
clickbait is for general #ContentConsumers™ who love consuming content. for examples, uh, open up youtube and go to incognito mode
link bait is for creators, to try to get them to advertise, sponsor, or otherwise promote your slop. for an example, get offered a raidy shady sponsorship i think
so my pedantic ass would say delete unless a section or article on link bait can be made cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is ambiguous. Link bait can mean both "clickbait" as well as "content designed to attract incoming links". We have no content to link to for the latter meaning, so there is nothing to do for now. Paradoctor (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian concession in Sarandë[edit]

Romanian Institute in Albania was originally created under this title. The author, blocked since 2019, appears to have misread the sources he used. Albania granted a Romanian historian property in Sarandë and he established an institute on it and granted half of the land to the Romanian state, but this does not mean a part of Sarandë stopped being a sovereign part of Albania to become part of Romania. The "concession" thing is original research. No sources talk about this using the word "concession" [15]. This is ultimately a hoax. Draft:Romanian concession in Sarandë should be deleted too. Super Ψ Dro 13:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phone computer[edit]

This seems overly technical. Nobody would really refer to smartphones as a phone computer outside of drawing some comparisons between smartphones and computers. Okmrman (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is what a smartphone is, and I wouldn't be surprised if the terms were used before "smartphone" became the established term (I can't check as Google is refusing to show me results that are both verbatim and before a given time, and either one alone is overwhelmed by irrelevant results where the two words happen to be adjacent, especially in lists in adverts). Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this actually link to telco equipment? Such as a PBX or other phone computers -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrasing of these redirects makes me believe they could also refer to Modem, thus making these redirects ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it is easy for English first speakers (or young people) to say they aren't needed, but they probably serve some utility and they perfectly describe what they are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. As Steel mentioned, a viable interpretation of this would be Modem, being "a phone used by a computer". However, I'd also think that VoIP phone-- a phone that uses the Internet instead of normal phone lines-- or softphone-- a software program that could call other people, which could be downloaded and installed on a PC-- would be valid interpretations of "Phone computer" or "Computer phone". Given I'm sure none of the above- including Smartphone (a phone which is a computer)-- would be a primary target, dabification is warranted. edited at 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - disambiguation pages are for topics that have the same title, not for manually compiled search indexes of possibly related keywords. We have a search engine for that, let it do its job. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty thinking[edit]

I just created this. But to be on the safe side, I wanted to ask for opinions, as this is actually a psychological term that does not appear in the given target as such, in fact. Hildeoc (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My first thought is that a fallacy is only one type of faulty thinking, others being using incorrect logic, extrapolating from a misunderstanding, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhh, "using incorrect logic" is a formal fallacy, "extrapolating from a misunderstanding" is (at a minimum) an informal fallacy. Paradoctor (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question this is actually a psychological term Can you provide a source defining this psychological term? The only uses I could find were all literal uses, i. e. talking about thinking that is faulty.
    Thinking is more general than reasoning/arguing, and from what I've seen, a case could be made to target cognitive biases instead, or in addition. Paradoctor (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paradoctor: Thanks for taking an interest. Well, if you google the term (using quotes), the hits you get are like almost exclusively related to uses in a psychological context; cf., e.g., here. Hildeoc (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    two [...] conceptions of faulty thinking That's two different terms. So we'd need to a) disambiguate, b) find articles to link to, which are defining these idioms. Alternatively a set index article would also be conceivable, though this would require a whole lot more sources.
    More to the point, the hits are uses, not definitions / discussions of the concept. Extracting definitions from usage would be WP:SYNTHESIS Paradoctor (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poopoo[edit]

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

Immigration control in Russia[edit]

I'm not sure this is the best target for this redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Illegal immigration to Russia. Doing a history dive, this was the original target, before being retargeted to Federal Migration Service 20 days later by its own creator. As it stands, this seems like the most relevant, widest-shot page on this topic (Because one agency has not been in control of this issue for Russia's entire existence as a country, retargeting to any one of said agencies would be a disservice.)
...Alternately, we COULD Dabify between Immigration to Russia, Illegal immigration to Russia, Federal Migration Service, and Main Directorate for Migration Affairs. There IS a third agency listed as a predecessor to the Federal Migration Service in its article, but that agency doesn't have a page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or retarget? If dabify, anyone want to draft a dab up?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the suggested targets Illegal immigration to Russia and Main Directorate for Migration Affairs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Main Directorate for Migration Affairs. No need to dabify: this is a single subject regardless agencies and articles where else it is covered. I added a lazy section "History", from which one can traced down all previous Russian migration control agencies, as well as "See also" about immigration to Russia. - Altenmann >talk 06:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pepitos[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned at target. Though retargeting to Pepito as a {{R from plural}} also seems viable. CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Pumpkin seed, with {{R from avoided double redirect|Pepita}} and {{R from misspelling}} Restore to original redirect form: #REDIRECT [[Pepita]] {{R from misspelling}}. This is an obvious and easy typo for pepita, that could be made by anyone with imperfect memory of the word and uncertain of the linguistic gender of the Spanish name (which is commonly used at least in the southern and western United States for roasted pumpkin/squash seeds, even if not widely used in English more broadly). If I had noticed the strange change to redirect this to a cookie brand for no source-supported reason (and an edit-summary reason that suggests it is a re-branding trademark of that specific product line but used only in a particular Spanish-speaking country, not within the Anglosphere), I would have reverted it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC); revised to fix post-merge error. 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify There is Pepito name and Pepito (sandwich). If we trust SMcCandlish, we have three distinct pluralizable items. Not to say that victionary says "pepito" used to be a gold nugget. ... Oh and there were Los Pepitos , see José Luis Cabezas and Charlie Rivel; and Pepitos: The Beak Saga in 80th Venice International Film Festival although seem no more. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. And there are plenty of "Pepitoses" in latin america es:Chips Ahoy!#Como "Pepitos" : it says that its name changes to Pepitos! for Argentina and Uruguay , so this can be added to chips ahoy, and the DAB page is for good. - Altenmann >talk 07:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's already a disambiguation page at Pepito. There are very few items on that page that could be pluralized, though, so targeting the nominated page there may not be appropriate. - Eureka Lott 14:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget to Pepito (I didnt pay attention that Pepito is a DAB page already, no need another one. - Altenmann >talk 19:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pepito as an {{R from plural}}. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, but hardly anything on that list is subject to pluralization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Becker[edit]

Couldn't find Wiren Dale Becker referred to with only his middle name, anywhere. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Becker for the original article under that title. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referred to as such here (one of the sources in the article). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (arguably almost should be moved to Dale Becker but that's a distinct discussion). Additional sources that use just the middle name: [16], [17], and [18] (definitely seem to be the same person). Skynxnex (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanator.com[edit]

Target article doesn't mention Japanator. Anyone has any idea? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually tried digging around, including the history of the (now community banned) person that created the redirect. Maybe a troll creation? No valid reason can be found, so Delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not a troll creation. I found this redirect by a link from another article. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanator should be bundled as well, I think? Not a super simple history. It was a sibling-ish site of Destructoid for quite awhile,[19][20] then was merged into Siliconera [21]. And so was part of Enthusiast Gaming (a possible retarget since it's mentioned there) but then Gamurs acquired some sites from Enthusiast (including Siliconera). So I think retarget to Enthusiast Gaming since it's mentioned there, including the transfer to Gamurs, and most of its system was part of that. Gamurs would be a fine (future) retarget if it's expanded. And open to other ideas if people know more (sadly lots of noise from the, hm, particular era that impacted gaming sites). (Pinging Neocorelight and Dennis Brown.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skynxnex Please do the bundling. I don't know how to. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neocorelight added (I think, oddly this is something I haven't done a ton of). Skynxnex (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gamurs would be an ideal target, but if no one's gonna write a mention of Japanator then I'm fine with retargeting to Enthusiast Gaming. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think redirecting it to an article with an unsourced single line mention is a good idea. For the redirect to stay, somewhere there needs to be a cite at least demonstrating it existed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added one. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 15[edit]

Drew Curtis' FARK.com[edit]

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

Dream Catching[edit]

A film that is not mentioned at the target article. I presume it's about the target, but with no mentions to Mill, the connection is unclear? Dreamcatching is a similar redirect that currently points to Dreamcatcher, which this is a variation of. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Deco[edit]

I presume this might have once been [mentioned], but now this concept of Dark Deco is not mentioned at the target. It has minor mentions across Wikipedia in reference to properties such as Batman: The Animated Series (across this and 2 other related pages, Gotham City and Andrea Beaumont), and also at Skullgirls in a quote. As it looks like 75% of all mentions of "Dark Deco" are at Batman pages, perhaps sending this to Batman: The Animated Series is the primary topic? Searching "Dark Deco" externally, 50% of my results are all Batman, with the rest of the topics being neologism hodgepodge across blogs and such. Now that I look into this more, I'm close to believing that "Dark Deco" is a specific Batman-related topic, and one that we cover across multiple Batman pages and basically nowhere else, but I wanted to bring this here as the current target has been fairly longstanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Mountain (logo)[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While the logo might be a mountain, the words "dark" nor "mountain" do not appear anywhere at the target page. We don't have any encyclopedic about a dark mountain logo, which encyclopedic content about a logo seems to be specifically requested through this search term, by including "logo" in the title. With this being tagged as a "related meme without a mention", I'm not too convinced about its plausibility standalone. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actions Prior to Grant's Landing[edit]

Vague and unhelpful redirect, not to mention the improper title case- which landing? Meant to imply for the Vicksburg campaign, but other operations during the war commanded by Grant involved the landing of troops. Very old R from move from 2003, was only briefly at this title before moving to Actions Prior to Grant's Landing Before Vicksburg, which was moved again to Actions Prior to Grant's Landing Before the Siege of Vicksburg and finally Actions prior to Grant's landing before the siege of Vicksburg before being blanked and redirected in 2005, so can be safely deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete per nominator. "Grant's Landing" appears to primarily refer to Vicksburg campaign and a place in Oregon (and this redirect would be unlikely to be used for searching for anything related to the Oregon place). But - this doesn't seem to be a phrasing found anywhere in the major secondary literature that I can tell, so I don't think that it's useful to keep around. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronomian[edit]

The target article does not mention the word “Pronomian” nor explain what the word means. Bwrs (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to be an R from antonym, given the "Anti-" in the target article is getting swapped for "Pro-", with the implication that the views of "Pronomians" are opposite that of "Antinomians". That said, I'd like to point out that R from Antonym as an rcat is one of those rcats that populates a maintenance category, so we can't just tag as Antonym and keep. (Which is odd to me? If we don't have an article on something, but we have an article on its direct opposite, and we can reasonably and competently explain the first thing as "the complete opposite of this second thing", then that seems to be a good place to have a redirect. Why is this rcat populating a maintenance category?) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really know for a fact that pronomianism is the opposite of antinomianism, or do we merely assume so based on the fact that “pro-” is the opposite of “anti-”? Now, if I really wanted to rid Wikipedia of these redirects I can tell you that they were made by somebody who is the subject of an WP:Office action. But the Wikipedia:Office never publishes the reasons for its actions, and I hope that discussing it here might raise the attention of subject matter experts who know what pronomianism actually is. Bwrs (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe we should redirect to Christian views on the Old Covenant. Antinomianism is usually used to mean a particular deviation from the mainstream Christian view (though we do a bad job of defining it in the article), so I don’t think this is an antonym, just another niche view.— JFHutson (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although that might be the most appropriate redirection target, it does not define the term either. Nowhere does the string “pronomian” appear in either the current target or in the new proposed target. This is one of my pet peeves, when a word I do not know redirects to an article that does not define this word. Bwrs (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baffle Of Chancellorsville[edit]

The unique substitution of "Baffle" for "Battle" along with the incorrect capitalization make this redirect highly unlikely to be of use. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean vocals[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No mentions of "clean" at the target page. At the target page, the act of singing is never implied to be "clean", or even consist of "clean vocals". The primary justification for this redirect existing is that unclean vocals is a redirect to death growl. Yet, its antonym has no mention at the general page for "singing". If clean and unclean vocals are antonyms, and both are redirects, this seems to imply that the concepts of "singing" and "death growl" are also "antonyms" in regard to vocal quality? Likely true, but never addressed (nor does it need to be imo). For someone specifically looking for information on the topic of "clean vocals", it seems to be preferable for these readers to end up at a topic that is directly pertinent to vocal quality. If people wanted to end up at Singing instead, they'd type singing, a concept everyone would have already been familiar with. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, an RfD for Clean vocals closed as retarget in 2015, but was pointed back to Singing after its conclusion three different times by two users, citing different material at the page for Screaming (music) (the resulting retarget). Utopes (talk / cont) 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the nominator that someone searching for "Clean vocals" or "Clean vocalist" is looking for more than the page on singing, and wants to know about the quality of the voice instead. I've been searching around, and the best page for information on vocal quality appears to be at Vocal pedagogy, but that page is super technical and seems a bit more deeply theoretical and broad topic than someone looking for information on voice quality. I'm not sure we actually have the perfect article to target for these... in which case maybe WP:REDLINKing it (that is, deletion) would be appropriate to encourage article creation. But I'm on the fence, so no formal !vote from me as of now. Fieari (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clean vocals is a highly likely search term Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This thing is really begging for a WP:RA, isn't it? Bwrs (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget ... somewhere. The term "clean vocals" is only relevant in the context of certain genres of music which use vocal techniques commonly called "unclean". Singing doesn't describe any of those techniques and is the wrong target; the word "clean" doesn't appear in the article at all. The problem is that this makes sense as an {{R from antonym}} to both screaming (music) and death growl, which are both different techniques, and both of those articles describe "clean vocals" in context. There's a former article in the redirect's history ([22]) which was prodded many years ago for having no sources at all. We shouldn't restore that, but maybe a short set index/disambiguation, to give the term context? Or else expanding the very bare section on those two vocal styles at Extended vocal technique#Distortion and then targeting there? As an antonym to unclean vocals and harsh vocals, which probably should get the same treatment as this redirect. I can find a few sources to draft something but I'm about to be in meetings for the foreseeable future (ugh). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that R From Antonym is not a "categorize this kept redirect" rcat, but instead, a "populate this maintenance category" redirect. I don't know WHY, but it IS. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Independent MPs[edit]

Template:Independent MPs in Canada used to be at this pagename until I moved it to clarify its scope and avoid potential confusion with other navboxes, e.g. Template:Independent MPs in the United Kingdom. Now that the Canadian navbox is transcluded directly through its new name, I suggest that the old name be deleted to avoid any future mix-ups, e.g. being added to a British MP's biography by mistake. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate make a template-space dab page (yes, those exist). It would show an error message when transcluded. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the IP editor who says to disambiguate (although the resulting disambiguation page could potentially get very long, couldn't it?) Bwrs (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, the only other relevant template is the UK one linked above. In most other countries with members of parliament, laws forbid anyone running or sitting in parliament without affiliation with a registered party, or independents sit so rarely that a template is moot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point! I didn't notice the word “independent”; probably all the independent members of US Congress and independent sitting state legislators in the United States put together would fit in a single infobox, as they are so rare. All the more reason to disambiguate. Bwrs (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Deuce[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned alternative name. Basically any time it comes up on Wikipedia, is people (including residents) saying that they've never heard this alternative name. The sources raised have all been mediocre, and as this was never added post-discussion-conclusion, it does not seem to have any use and only adds confusion for those who search this term and end up at a city where its colloquial(?)/uncommon nickname is not mentioned. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft retarget to wikt:acey-deucey? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would advise against that. Wiktionary redirects are good for likely dictionary terms. And redirecting Title A to a completely separate Title B across different projects, with several variations between each, is highly unideal. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ace deuce craps wants four
delete, i guess. from some looking, i found gambling jargon and... nothing else worth a specific redirect. there's a rapper with this name and a one piece character named "masked deuce" whose leader is named ace, though, so do with that what you will cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants the, who wants the hard four? Five want four
For the record, I don't terribly oppose deletion. There's really not very many good places to redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technofascism and Techno-fascism[edit]

Same terminology, different meanings. Does its meaning depend on the absence/presence of the hyphen, or can it have both meanings either way? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thought exactly. Either it is a term legitimately attested to in the literature, or else it is POV and should be deleted. Which of these it is, I will leave to smarter contributors than myself – the top Google “hit” points to one of the target Wikipedia articles and the second one points to this RfD itself! (and subsequent “hits” point to academic articles that are way “above my head.”) Bwrs (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did some looking around and "technofascism" apparently means "fascism that uses technology", not "fascism in technology", so both of those are wrong
either retarget them to fascism or a more fitting target, or cause them to mysteriously disappear delete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagined "technofascism" being a portmanteau of technocracy and fascism (with the former referring to governance by experts, not technology itself) and that it would refer to a blend of both. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
probably true Bwrs (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GWGFJ[edit]

no evidence of abbreviation Okmrman (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awooo[edit]

It just feels questionable, especially considering that you could put any amount of trailing Os and it would still be "valid". Okmrman (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 is a good number, honestly
"awo" is more of an acronym than anything, "awoo" is momiji inubashiri's famous totally canon catchphrase (she does not officially have a catchphrase, and that catchphrase is not "awoo"), and "awoooo" would be a little too much
so i'd say keep cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7.92[edit]

searching it up on google doesn't result in 8 mm but it does show another bullet type Okmrman (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify, there are quite a fair number of ammunition types and/or firearms that we have articles on, that could be targeted to. Of note are the following:
7.92x57mm Mauser
7.92×33mm Kurz
7.92×94mm Patronen
7.92×107mm DS
7.92×36mm EPK
7.92 mm Rifle Anti-Tank Mascerzek
7.92mm Bergmann MG15Na 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh yeah i also found out related redirect 7.92 mm. Might as well put this out there as well for you to decide on it. Okmrman (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably gonna go with Dabify per Luna and redirect 7.92 mm to that disambig Okmrman (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Retarget per Travix Okmrman (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 7 mm caliber, which is for the 7.00 to 7.99 millimetres (0.2756 to 0.3146 in) caliber range. Anything at 7.92 mm should be listed there. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might as well bundle 7.92 mm and 7.92mm along with this Okmrman (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deplorable[edit]

Another confusing vocabulary word redirect. Not everything that is deplorable is part of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables". We don't have deplore, so maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary will have to do. Duckmather (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki to wiktionary per nom Okmrman (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Delete I'm partial to the stance in the previous discussion that search results are adequate here and there does not need to be a DAB page for partial title matches. However, there are partial title matches so I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is the best option. Though, I'm not really familiar with when it is best to use them. ― Synpath 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Combine a {{Wiktionary}} link with a “see also” section as well. Bwrs (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The F-Bomb (movie)[edit]

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-Bomb (documentary)[edit]

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-Bomb (film)[edit]

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The F-Bomb (film)[edit]

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-Bomb (movie)[edit]

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American Dodgeball Association of America[edit]

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to add related redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. Okmrman (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Bessarabia[edit]

Inaccurate redirect. The Ottoman Empire annexed both Budjak (south of Bessarabia) and northern parts centered around Khotyn [23] [24]. No appropriate alternative target, lack of incoming links show the redirect is not useful. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find those links (to a user-generated map in a Wikipedia article and a bibliographic citation) very helpful. Are you saying that, because the Ottoman Empire annexed more than one place, they didn't give the name Bessarabia to one place (and some other name to the other place)?
What I found in looking into this is that the area the Ottomans called Bessarabia (e.g., in 1600) is not the same as the area the Russians called Bessarabia (e.g., in 1820). The Ottomans used that name (e.g., in 1600) for the part of the world that is described by our article on Budjak, and which that article calls historic Bessarabia. The Russians used that name (e.g., in 1820) for a much larger area. Budjak therefore appears to be the correct target for the Ottoman use of the name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(pokémon character)[edit]

closed before with no consensus

aron and golem are species of pokémon, not individual characters cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Absolutely nothing wrong with these redirects, they're a predictable disambiguation. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the point made in the previous rfd was that this was akin to "wookiee (character)" or "cow (character)" being used to refer to entire species, as opposed to a single, identifiable wookiee or cow. as far as "notable" members of those species go... i guess a golem is a minor character in the pokémon mystery dungeon series? maybe there's a reason no one remembers team rumblerock :( cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Golem because it is a minor character in the pokémon mystery dungeon series. A page discussion Golem as a character would be the only appropriate target, yet Pokémon Mystery Dungeon has no mention of this. Delete Aron too per nom. Nickps (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, that was part of what i could retroactively call a joke. that golem is so minor i'm pretty sure he only gets one non-missable line in the entire main plot of the rescue team games. it would take a miracle for that to afford even a passing mention anywhere
    and aron doesn't even get that, so cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 00:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, nom's argument still applies, so my vote stays the same. I'll strike that part though since it's just me not getting the joke. Nickps (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Pokemon Character). As I stated at the tail end of that discussion (and should've mentioned FAR sooner): Aron and Golem are species of Pokemon, not the proper names of individual characters-- it'd be akin to Wookiee (Star Wars character). While I will acknowledge that there are instances of individual Pokemon being referred to by the name of their species as if it were a proper name-- with perhaps the most notable example being Ash's Pikachu-- at no point are there notable discrete characters with these names that aren't at the level of fancruft. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these. There is no Pokemon character called "Aron". There is no Pokemon character called "Golem". Utopes (talk / cont) 09:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Chinese FA Super Cup[edit]

The subject never existed to begin with, similar to the 2022 edition in the same compeition.

Law of fives[edit]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discordian concept (e.g. [25]), so the redirect should go to Discordianism. Furius (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, what is this mass deletion of much of Discordian concepts? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore relevant section, which can be found here. I'll note that there may be more-recent revisions of this section somewhere in the page history and/or relevant sources to cite (given the section I'm linking didn't have sources at this time); finding said sources/newer revisions will be an exercise left to the editor, given holy hell, the page history for this page is a nightmare. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This cannot be restored as it is unsourced (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the correct page in the Principia Discordia (the holy book of this religion), and should serve as a fairly good source for this section, especially given it already claims to (and upon checking, DOES) quote said book. As a note, this took FIVE SECONDS to find, given said book is literally linked to, multiple times, by both this old version of the page AND the current version.
    There's a time and a place to use WP:BURDEN. "I don't feel like taking a five second check to see if I can find a source myself in the most obvious spot(s)" isn't the time nor place. (edit at 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the Bible is most of the time not a RS to talk about Christianity, using this book the way you propose is OR from a primary source and not the use of a secondary RS. Primary sources should often be avoided, and in this case it should. Yes, you can WP:SELFSOURCE, but the relevance of the information (WP:ONUS) is to be decided by secondary sources (do they mention the information? do they say it is an important information, how much do they dedicate to said information?) and not by the presence of redirects. Veverve (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all right, let's just check the next most obvious spot, being one of the sources we already have, and... Oh hey look, Invented Religions (the book cited multiple times already in these discussions) has a mention of the Law of Fives, too.
    Would be helpful if Google Books had a way to see the full discussion of the topic without buying the book but w/e
    In any case, that brings me back to my main point, there-- it's unhelpful, and actively harmful, to take a broad hatchet and hack away at unsourced parts of an article without first checking the most obvious places to see if you can find a source yourself. Those most obvious places including texts referenced in/quoted by the article without linking to them (which can quickly become sourcing FROM those texts), texts already used as sources elsewhere in the article, and a five-second search on Google Books. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tantras[edit]

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 (Hinduism) and Tantras (Buddhism). Tantras in plural refers to Tantra texts, not the Tantra system.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, are you saying the page should be changed into a dab? Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:16, 24 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]

  • Keep. Countering the nomination, it does make sense for the two titles to point to different articles. For any confusion, hatnotes are already in place. Jay 💬 05:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it make sense? Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One is a singular and the other is a plural. Why does it not make sense? Jay 💬 07:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for further consideration of disambiguation proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tantra but yes, a DAB would cover every one of the topics and is maybe the most direct way to seek the plausible topic that many readers would be searching for. It should be a well-done DAB page in order to put the most sought after topics high on the list and maybe make a few primary at the top. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dependence liability[edit]

Needs adequate inclusion. Hildeoc (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of this redirect, I would like to mention that this term features in most articles using the | dependency_liability parameter in Infobox drug such as Caffeine, Cocaine or MDMA, where it pipes to the same article as the redirect's destination. That being said, it could be expanded into an article since there's probably enough information on the subject, or at the very least something like List of psychoactive substances by dependence liability could be created to further establish the term. — Mugtheboss (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, I had a look through WP:R#DELETE to refresh my memory, and there isn’t a criterion for redirects not having adequate usage. I also thought that maybe my redirect could be seen to fall under 8 or 10, but the term "dependence liability" is mentioned in this section of the target page, and that section does delve into the topic, albeit pretty shallowly, so my view is that neither apply. — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mugtheboss: But it's not at all defined there, only peripherally mentioned in a single instance. Hildeoc (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hildeoc: The term "dependence liability" should be self-explanatory in the context of that article, I.E. how liable a substance is to cause dependence. As I mentioned, the term is present in practically every article using Template:Infobox drug with the | dependency_liability parameter being active, making it widespread across the wiki. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mugtheboss: I'm sorry but, in fact, that is not how WP:R#PLA works imho. Hildeoc (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hildeoc: If you believe that it fails RPLA, then the best option would be to redirect it to the section of the target page I linked above, which would make it adhere to this part of the guideline: "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" … are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes." If you agree, I'd happily do it myself. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ukraine missile strike[edit]

Obviously problematic redirect. Inclusionists let's use common sense. Just delete the redirect. We don't have disambiguation pages like 2022 Ukraine missile strike or 2023 Ukraine missile strike. There is few people who would look up something as general as this. Let's simply delete the redirect, it is of not much use. Super Ψ Dro 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first reaction was to keep, as it seemed like this was "2024 strike" (singular) to "2024 strikes" (plural). Then I noticed the "22 March" part of the target. Delete as per nom, definitely don't keep on current target. (A potential target if kept MIGHT be to Russo-Ukrainian War, which takes a more wide-shot, general look at the concept... but if any missile strikes happen in Ukraine NOT part of the Russo-Ukranian War, the reasoning for that retarget falls apart.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Pppery, although I do recommend adjusting to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#January 2024 given this one doesn't specify March. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 14[edit]

Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor[edit]

I would like to delete the redirect "Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor" so that I can move the current article, "Adelaide–Darwin railway line" to the name currently occupied by the redirect.

Rationale: There are 5 major rail corridors between Australia's capital cities (as in the map here). For 4 of them, the Wikipedia article uses the word "corridor" (example: Sydney–Brisbane rail corridor). Only the Adelaide–Darwin one uses "line". The action requested would unify the terminology of all five. SCHolar44 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Bounds(novel)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space before the disambiguator. Nickps (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think I messed up here actually. Some of these might be eligible for WP:G6. Oh well... Nickps (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gobshite[edit]

For the first time I think at RfD... I'm at a complete and total loss of words. I have, no idea, about any of this history. But it's certainly wrong. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The word gobshite refers to a person who talks shite (speaks nonsense or is a fool), not to verbosity or (necessarily) a verbose person. I would delete, or perhaps as an alternative retarget to Shite, which is a DAB pointing to Shit among other things. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was mainly looking at the... interesting history behind this title, and its past and former targets. 😅 Utopes (talk / cont) 05:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to the wiktionary entry
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gobshite Okmrman (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Okmrman. Don't read too much into the history, WP:POINT is pretty much written about the editor who picked the current target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Okmrman; don't keep it at its current gobshite target. Queen of ♡ | speak 20:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eater(Novel)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space before the disambiguator. Nickps (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kate?[edit]

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

Kyra Tierney[edit]

No discussion of a character called "Kyra Tierney" at the target article. Only mention on Wikipedia is at the disambig page for Tierney linking here, but the presence of a blue link implies we have content about this character, which we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep. It seems "Kyra Tierney" is an actual character in the show, so it’s reasonable to expect someone searching the character's name on Wikipedia would be interested in that particular article. Slamforeman (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kobold (Shannara)[edit]

No character called Kobold at the target article, has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keating (Fair City)[edit]

No mention of a character called Dan Keating at the target article, has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2003[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some further unique history. Unlike Jan 2, this has been to RfD before, and closed as no consensus. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2, 2003[edit]

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some history. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jailarity[edit]

No mention of this related word at the target article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. I have to guess this has been unmentioned at the target for at least 15 years, maybe its entire redirect lifetime. Has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redirect was created on April 22, 2006-- and on that day, "Jailarity" was defined under "Farkisms and cliches". At this point in time, the section was a long list of examples of various "farkisms", instead of a few paragraphs discussing the concept of a "farkism" in general. The last revision to have this "list" version of the section was here, before it was stricken as unencyclopedic-- it would then be readded a couple of times and immediately re-removed, before this revision added the section that would be molded into what we have today.
"Jailarity", in summary, was defined in a section that was removed for being unencyclopedic and replaced with a section that is far more encyclopedic, but doesn't define or even mention this term. Delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackahuahua[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Dog breed redirected at a 2008 AfD, seemingly been unmentioned at the target for over a decade. It's misleading to maintain breed redirect for a dog type that holds zero information on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could go to list of dog crossbreeds but that page doesn't mention it; however, it's only had 3 views in the past 30 days which probably includes me looking at it. I don't think this designer dog breed has much notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ŽS series 711[edit]

When this redirect was created, it pointed to RA2 Multiple Unit, which is the model that ŽS series 711 (manufacturer's designation: DP-S) is derived from. An anonymous user later disputed the redirect, pointing out RA-2 and DP-S are two different series. User Malcolmxl5 then made the redirect point to ŽS series 812, which is absolute nonsense since ŽS 812 and ŽS 711 have nothing in common besides operating on same routes. As the English wiki does not have a page about ŽS series 711 or DP-S Multiple Unit, I propose this redirect be deleted. Upwinxp (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeltown[edit]

This is not attested anywhere, and its addition to the article was solely referenced to the article's "version history". 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Abbott[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The name today (according to a quick Google search) is more closely associated with Helen Blenkinsop, for which we don't have an article. While Samuel Spewack also used the name as a pseudonym and would warrant a disambiguating hatnote should an article exist on the primary topic, redirecting as-is is more likely to confuse readers. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blenkinsop is a recent user of the name (there's also the author of The Bazique-player's Hand-book, and various others). If you are prepared to write an article for her, then great. If not, don't destroy a valid redirect on that basis. (There also some other A. A. Abbotts.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Also the founder of this town: Kalkaska, Michigan. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • comment would this is better off as a set index? --Lenticel (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep adding a mention at the target is most appropriate here. Frank Anchor 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedians by article count[edit]

Cross namespace redirect that is primarily linked to old archives. Note that it links to WP:List of Wikipedians by article count, but is a rather self redirect. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 11:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oorum Unavum[edit]

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Page history didn't seem very useful either. DrowssapSMM 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD if not notable, was an article for 7 years before being single-handedly blanked by an IP a couple months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Trotskij[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D8. This appears to be the spelling of Trotsky's name in various North Germanic languages and this spelling isn't used in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be the spelling of his name in Danish and Norwegian, neither of which are particularly relevant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavia Province, Ottoman Empire[edit]

The Principality of Moldavia was never a "province" of the Ottoman Empire. It was never a part of the empire. It always remained a separate country with its own laws and administration under vassalage. These redirects are inaccurate and misleading. Also the "Bogdan/Bogdania/Boğdan" redirects are made up original research. Super Ψ Dro 12:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Moldavia Province and Boğdan Province Referred to as such in several books (on "Moldavia," see [26], [27], [28], etc.) (on "Boğdan," see [29] and [30]). Cannot find references for the others, so delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects. Moldavia (known in Turkish as Boğdan) was never a formal part of the Ottoman Empire, much less something organized into a province. If anything some parts of Moldavia, fractions, were formally annexed and organized into distinct sanjaks ("provinces") that did not even border each other [31] [32], adding a layer of ambiguity to this issue. That sources with a wide general scope have chosen to use a common word to describe a detail that was clearly not given much attention do not change Moldavia's status in the past. Professional academic sources on the history of Romania will never refer to Moldavia as a "province". Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned about the inaccuracy, the redirects can be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}. As it stands, there are indeed sources which refer to this area as a "province" of the Ottoman Empire, so the redirects are plausible search terms. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea (I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects) seems to come up fairly often. The telephone game by which we teach editors how Wikipedia works is not good at this kind of subject. So, because a lot of editors don't know, let me say that the point of a redirect is not to be accurate information, but to take readers to accurate information. An incorrect name can make a perfectly fine redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 10 April 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! 01:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of Bessarabia[edit]

Nonsense redirects. Bessarabia is a region in Eastern Europe. Budjak is a subset of it. Super Ψ Dro 12:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Bessarabia Governorate. "Province" appears to be an alternative translation (see [33], [34], etc.) - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In both links you gave province is not capitalized, there is no proper names but a descriptive combination of words. There was also Bessarabia Governorate (Romania) by the way. We could disambiguate but I see it as really unnecessary. Also, come on, The Province of Bessarabia is completely implausible, it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter if it's not capitalized in the specific sources I found? It will still be a plausible search term. I thought about disambiguation, but I think the hatnote at the proposed target is sufficient. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the key word in the nominating statement is: "is". Bessarabia is a larger region in Eastern Europe. However, it appears that it was a smaller Turkish province/governate/eyalet, from the late 15th century through the early 19th century. Here's the article as it stood before being redirected in 2005:

    The Province of Bessarabia or Besarabya pashalyk in Turkish, was an Ottoman province from 1478 to 1812. Its size varied, however by 1600, it included the towns of Cetatea Alba, Izmail, Tighina, and Kilia.
    The Ottoman Province of Bassarabia was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1812, along with all Moldovan territory east of the Prut river, which the Russians governed jointly in one single Russian province of Bessarabia.
    The Ottoman Province, only, is more or less the same size as the territory of modern-day Bugeac, which is currently part of the Ukrainian Odessa oblast.

    This is uncited but sounds plausible, and it aligns with the bit in Budjak#Name and geography (i.e., the redirect's target) that uses the name historic Bessarabia. There are sources such as this 1927 book (about the Russian annexation of the province) and this 2019 book (about ethnicity, but summarizing the pre-Russian state, in which Bessarabia was vaguely delimited but generally congruent with Budjak), and "province"+"bessarabia"&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover this book (which confirms Izmail was part of the province of Bessarabia when the Russians took the province from the Ottomans, before they gave it to Moldovia) that verify at least parts of it. At any rate, though I'm unfamiliar with the history of this area, it appears that it's not "nonsense", but merely a detail of history that is not widely known. Consequently, we should probably keep this redirect, and probably improve the target article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:→[edit]

Ambiguous with Help:Edit summaries § Section editing. In fact, since "→" is not on most keyboards, copying it from an edit summary should be one of the most likely ways it is being searched. Also, WP:← redirects to H:AES which causes the two redirects to be inconsistent with each other. I suggest we dabify. Nickps (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though I've recommended disambiguate I'd be happy to see this just redirect to AES as that is probably more likely given people see that in the history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio[edit]

Delete as inaccurate and implausible. The abortion was performed in Indiana, not Ohio. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jax 0677: Why? WP:CHEAP doesn't explain why this redirect should be kept, it explains the general state of redirects. That's why you'll rarely see others cite it at RfD, it doesn't say anything in particular. Instead, it'd be more helpful to explain why you created it and why it may be a useful redirect, despite being inaccurate. -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Some people do not know that the abortion was performed in Indiana. Additionally, the redirect is not blocking any other article from being created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also see this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_5#10-year-old_Ohio_rape_victim_required_to_cross_state_lines_to_obtain_abortion Okmrman (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching this term is entirely plausible, as the title lends itself to potential confusion by mentioning both Ohio and Indiana. TNstingray (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is fine. Someone searching for this term will find out the facts of the case. BD2412 T 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a search engine, redirects should not be accommodating inaccurate keywords cobbled together into a never-before-seen title. As the abortion was not performed in Ohio, this cannot be an alternative name for the subject. Typing this into the search bar is far more insightful than maintaining this as a redirect, as readers will see the correct title and realize "Ah, it was the Indiana abortion case; the abortion was not performed in Ohio". This redirect currently causes confusion and presents a faulty equalization that a Ohio-abortion case = Indiana-abortion case, as there's no mention of a "Ohio-abortion misconception" or anything that would imply such a misconception. The redirect in question does not appear written at the target page (as it's untrue), nor does it appear anywhere on Wikipedia (as it's untrue). Utopes (talk / cont) 07:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects don't have to be mentioned in the article; there is no requirement for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that being mentioned is a requirement. Thousands don't, probably. But not being mentioned, heck, not even ever alluded to, absolutely demolishes any of the little motivation for keeping misleading information in the form of a redirect void-of-context. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible – though apparently not popular – search term, because not everyone is going to remember where the abortion physically happened. It sounds like the concern is that some editors parse the title as meaning that Ohio was the location of the abortion, rather than the (usual) location of the child – i.e., that "2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio" is equal to "2022 abortion performed in Ohio on a 10-year-old" and is factually inaccurate, but "2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old from Ohio" would be accurate. I see their point, but I think that asking for grammatical perfection in a redirect is not necessary. The point of a redirect is to get people to the article that contains the accurate facts, and this will achieve that goal. Just as I think the incorrect hyphenation is not a good reason to delete a redirect, I think the suboptimal preposition isn't a good reason to delete it. Also, it looks like an RM during the first weeks of the article's existence introduced the "in Ohio" idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Plausible, but not very popular" is a wild misrepresentation of the fundamental facts. This makes the assumption that A: writing a backwards, incorrect, non-existent / Google search prompt is "plausible", and B: a grand total of zero views with the last 12 months is "apparently not popular"... "Apparently"?? Even with the clunky overly-specific and still somehow incorrect title out of the way, was there a world that this title was even going to get a view? No, it's completely unnatural and would be expected to exist by zero people on Wikipedia. If you ask 100 people to describe the case in 30 different ways, I'm nearly positive that this title wouldn't appear ever, much less make the shortlist for likely and useful redirects. This is a search term, not worthy of a redirect. Search terms as redirects are a horrible precedent as is, as there's literally infinite search terms in existence and not worthwhile to entertain as long as Wikipedia has a build-in search box that captures every single variety, and everything I've tried has led to 100% accurate results as long as the text exists.
    And yet, with all of those tests, there are thousands of theoretical implausible search-term-redirects that could (and don't) exist. And all of the thousands would be far better options that 2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio in its current state, as it's literally a lie. On the chance that this is naturally typed into Wikipedia, with someone asking themselves "was this abortion in Indiana or Ohio?", they get a wrong answer. Why click further? The title implies the events already, and the implication is simply untrue. There's like 30+ other redirects currently here that capture every reasonable (and unreasonable) outcome, this untruth variant is simply not necessary. It's harmful and confusing and deletable per WP:RDEL #2. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Google, and even if it was, the redirect is still inaccurate. DrowssapSMM 13:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inaccurate and implausible search term. TarnishedPathtalk 09:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a search engine StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - search term with enough relevant facts to identify the target, and catches searches where the reader doesn't know (or care) which particular state the specific events occurred in. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So does this mean that as long as a redirect is 80% correct, it doesn't matter if the remaining 20% is wrong/misleading because 80 is still a passing grade? There's an infinite number of 100% correct titles out there, I feel we should be focusing on redirecting those rather than phrases that are 90% or 80% or 70% correct; "close enough" isn't enough to redirect (the search bar solves all of those problems). Utopes (talk / cont) 17:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's exactly what it means. A redirect is meant to get readers to the information they're looking for, not penalize them for not already knowing certain specific (and to non-Americans, largely irrelevant) details of an event. Unless we have many articles on American children being sexually assaulted and then forced to travel to a different state for critical medical care that's denied to them in their home states for stupid religious reasons, "close enough" is just that: close enough. Taking them to the information they're obviously looking for is clearly better than taking them to an error message. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay... so throwing a hodgepodge of accurate enough words in a title gives one freedom to fill the remaining 20% with lies, I guess? Maybe nobody outside of America cares about the details and whether the abortion was in Indiana or Tennessee or Alaska or on the moon. Having unexplained lies in a title is inherently confusing, given that the 30 other ~implausible redirects that were created to this article are going to autofill here first. "Details being irrelevant" and "true accuracy doesn't matter" isn't just a pandora's box, it's a crushing typhoon of redirection malpractice. What error message would people see? The search results?? That's where readers go for 99.9% of the infinite search terms out there anyway. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. Frank Anchor 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because often times you don't see the redirection header when viewing the article; hence, such incorrect redirects may cause confusion. Bwrs (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function[edit]

Without a mention of "easing", making this already not a great target, there's also no mention of a "function" at the target either. While the page admittedly talks about an "ease-in" and an "ease-out", this is not necessarily an "easing function" and several other topics deal with "easing" as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function is a common term in computer graphics, see [35] [36]. Maybe there's a better redirect target, or a new article is warranted, but this was the best I could find. 11wx (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing[edit]

"Easing" not mentioned at target, many possibilities for this term, including at Ease and the many many other articles that also use "ease" as a term or title. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business for the Creative Industries[edit]

Not likely search term; only usecase was for the creator to link it on their user page as their PhD, and was eventually blocked for WP:PAID editing. I don't foresee this getting any further use, convoluted name and no definite target it seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is basically a redirect-from-bizarre-definition and the likelihood of this being used again is vanishingly small. (It's also pointlessly vague - there are many other forms of creative industries besides music.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 13[edit]

Environmental Analysis of Computing[edit]

At this title for a few days. As far as I can tell this phrase is not used, it has exactly one Google hit. Rusalkii (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jake the Jailbird[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mr. Monopoly#History, which mentions the name-- In the book, all of the characters that appear on the Monopoly board or within the decks of cards received a name. Uncle Pennybags' full name was given as Milburn Pennybags, the character "In Jail" is named "Jake, the Jailbird", and the police officer on Go to Jail is named "Officer Mallory". 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finite dimensional Hilbert spaces[edit]

The current target may be too technical for the search term. Alternatives could be Hilbert space or Euclidean space (or Euclidean space#Technical definition). Also note that the singular Finite dimensional Hilbert space, or the more correct hyphenations Finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces/Finite-dimensional Hilbert space do not currently exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal tart[edit]

Should delete as to WP:FANCRUFT. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animals (2023 film)[edit]

Should be retargeted to Animal (disambiguation)#Films, like Animal (film) currently, or be deleted. Per the above DAB there are two 2023 films called "Animal", so targeting one specifically is inappropriate. Additionally, neither (including the Indian film) seems to actually be called "Animals". Toadspike (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Animal (disambiguation)#Films - this seems plausible enough a typo that a redirect to the dab doesn't seem too out there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as censusing, while plural and singular are often interchangeable "Animals" doesn't appear in either of the 2023 films named "Animal". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Company, Ltd.[edit]

This redirect is technically correct, since the only Microsoft entity we have an article that is a "Company, Limited" seems to be the Japan subsidiary. However, I think the vast majority of users would be looking for Microsoft, which is also the first and basically only result on Google. Thus, I propose retargeting this redirect to Microsoft. Toadspike (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this redirect also created several others targeted at Microsoft Japan around the same time and was later blocked for being a sockpuppet. I am not sure if WP:G5 applies, since the redirect might be useful. If someone else determines that G5 applies, they may freely CSD the redirect and close this discussion as moot. Toadspike (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Microsoft - G5 does not apply here because the sockmaster was blocked a week after the redirect was created, on 21 Dec 2023. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verticon[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Verticons, as far as I know, are basically an alternative name for Kaomojis, but they can be composed of Western characters as well. Since the term occurs in the net (and I even saw it in a book some while ago), deletion is no valid option, as people might enter the term into our search engine. I have therefore added a sentence about them to the target page, so they are now covered explicitly rather than only in general. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doooo you have a source for that? If so, happily keep. If not, we probably shouldn't have it added to the page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological addiction[edit]

Needs adequate inclusion. Hildeoc (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged the redirect as a "R from merge" and notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahim (politician)[edit]

The person in question does not have a Wikipedia article, and the article where Abdur Rahim (politician) redirects to, is a general article about the Muslim name 'Abd al-Rahim that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question.Crampcomes (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The redirect is tagged "R from incomplete disambiguation", and the target article is indeed a disambig page; there are multiple "Abdur Rahims" and "Abdul Rahims" listed on the page that are politicians, such as Abdul Rahim Hatef, Abdul Rahim Malhas, and Abdul Rahim (Afghan politician). While I do think that the disambig page could do with a bit of reorganizing, this redirect is entirely correct. Note, for the record, that Abdul vs Abdur is a transliteration issue; in Arabic they'd all be written the same way. (edit added 13:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunamann. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Grandstaff[edit]

Delete due to no suitable target, since Grandstaff is not only known for voicing Daria and is mentioned in several other articles, including those related to Beavis and Butt-Head, The Real World (TV series), and Taina (TV series) (see [37]). — Goszei (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. While Grandstaff may have been involved with those other series, I would argue that Daria remains what she is primarily known for. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10/WP:REDYES (to encourage article creation). Basically nothing about her at the current target anyway. A7V2 (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my above, I'm not sure now. This has history as an article, but it was merged (though I don't see that much, if anything, has been added from the old article) after a brief discussion here Talk:Daria#Merge. I still don't think this is a suitable redirect as things stand, and I wonder how appropriate it would be to add information about Grandstaff's other roles at the current target. A7V2 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the current situation isn't ideal. I'm not aware of any precedent for a scenario like this, nor do I have ideas for the best way to proceed other than leaving the redirect in place. Part of the problem seems to be that there aren't many sources that talk about Grandstaff herself, which makes having her own article (the best-case scenario) challenging, and wedging what we do have into Daria, for instance, is a bit awkward. It's not even clear to me whether we have any information regarding the casting of Grandstaff as Daria; presumably it's based on her involvement in B&B and TRW, but we obviously can't just say that. So, essentially, I'm left with being open to suggestions while feeling that deleting the redirect doesn't really benefit anyone. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hail eris[edit]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seriously? This is definitely a good redirect, as are almost all the others, which are going to be a weekend time-sink. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: Is there a reason "Eris" starts with a lowercase letter? It looks like a mistake to me, but for all I know, there could be some Discordian symbolism behind it. Note that Hail Eris does not exist. Nickps (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, thanks Nickps, this is just a lowercase redirect that someone lowercasing the proper name would use. I haven't done a count of how many deletion requests are here, but I do know that the editor has opened an ANI thread on me for my concerns and reverts that a WikiHatchet is being taken to this topic in a two-day time period unlike anything I've seen on Wikipedia, with most of it apparently not knowing the topic. You're right, the uppercasijng didn't have a redirect, fixed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the uppercased version to the RfD because the nom's concern (no mention) has not been addressed. I won't comment on the nom's intention, that's for WP:ANI, but the argument itself has merit in my opinion. Why have this redirect if the reader finds nothing about its subject when they follow it? Nickps (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. These terms should be on the page itself, as they are well known elements of the topic (were they removed in the deletions?). Even if not mentioned, they are directly related to the topic Discordianism and known among people who know of the topic and have read the books. It is a parody religion, or religion, or philosophy, but has people like me who know of it but don't run around practicing it (although I do carry a pope card in my wallet so am on the sidelines somewhere). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, known among people who know of the topic and have read the books is generally not quite the argument for keeping a redirect with no explanation at the target, since those people aren't really provided any further information by looking up the term either, while other readers may just be confused. (Not saying this necessarily applies here, but it does not seem like the correct argument.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it goes to knowing that the wording of the redirect is a real thing and that some readers may be looking for it. It's original research/knowledge but attesting to the redirects usefulness ought to be counted, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Eris (mythology); Discordianism is not the only religion that worship(ed) Eris, and given the redirect title, it's probably far more helpful to redirect to Her page specifically. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense at all. "Hail Eris" only refers to Discordianism. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm not terribly opposed to Keep as per "yeah no this IS specifically Discordian". I'm mainly opposed to outright deletion. I will note, however, that Eris (mythology) does have a section on Discordianism-- should we target to Eris (mythology)#In Discordianism? (edited on 13:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC))𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should target the redirects to a section or WP article which covers the "Hail Eris" sentence, and if such a sentence is not covered anywehre on WP then the redirects should be deleted. And it turns out that the sentence is discussed nowhere on any WP article. Veverve (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most likely that Discordianism is the topic searched for with this term. Eris (mythology) is linked in the first sentence of the article. Retarget to Eris (mythology) would not be an improvement but would be preferable to deletion. Peter James (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Eris (mythology) or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avanturine glance[edit]

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

Punctured plane[edit]

This used to be an avoided double redirect to Punctured neighbourhood, which used to redirect to this glossary (though has since been retargeted). However, this is not really conceptually related to punctured neighbourhoods. One place where this is described is Scheme (mathematics)#Examples, though there might be similar content portraying this topic from some other mathematical field's POV. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • REDIRECT I would have expected this to be a redirect to Puncture (topology), or perhaps to Complex plane (in the context of meromorphic functions), both of which I would prefer to the current situation. Redirecting to the top of a glossary page doesn't help the reader much, I think. Tea2min (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One might also consider redirecting this to the disambiguation page for Punctured, which may be expanded with additional uses in mathematics. Redirecting to the complex plane seems like a good idea for something like punctured complex plane, but the current title can refer to planes over other fields as well. Note that there are also the Punctured set and Punctured surface redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of context, "Punctured set" does not seem to mean anything useful. And it does not even appear in the Glossary of topology. I would delete that redirect. PatrickR2 (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go. A lot many targets to consider.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget While there is not really any information specifically on punctured planes at Puncture (topology), it does mention the Moebius strip as an example of a punctured projective plane. Among the presented options, this seems to me the most obviously useful target. Felix QW (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Differential algebraic variety[edit]

Not mentioned at target, and there does not seem to be a proper description of this anywhere. Maybe redirect to Differential algebra or Differential algebraic geometry (which claims that this is different from a diffiety)? Note that differential variety does not exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, such a discussion should be better placed at WT:WPM, since the interested editors are necessarily participants to the wiki project mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to diffiety. "Diffiety" is a portemanteau for "differential variety", and this is the only mentioned article that contains a definition of something that may be called a differential algebraic variety. D.Lazard (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the three proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, differential algebraic variety refers to the subject of papers such as this one from the intersection of differential algebra and model theory and to the work of Ellis Kolchin. We mention this body of work in Differential algebra#open problems, but don't give an actual treatment of the term. I would therefore be reluctant to retarget to diffiety, but that may well be biased because of my own background in model theory. Felix QW (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filtered ring[edit]

Not actually mentioned at target (which only describes the case of algebras over a field), and IMO Filtration_(mathematics)#Rings_and_modules:_descending_filtrations is a better target. The compatibility with multiplication is often not required. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there's also ring filter, a filtered ring in the literal sense -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of proposed target - Filtration (mathematics).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Accendo[edit]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this used to be a full article and was merged to Discordianism for some reason. As a merge this redirect is both allowed and useful. Maybe the nominator can withdraw this and several others? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not connected to target article. This is not Discordianism, but something different. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its former full article said it was a spin-off of Discordianism. Seems the two routes here are return the article, which is reasonable, or redirect it to Discordianism, which is even more reasonable. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. Not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, is not a useful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that this used to be a full article and was merged to the target and, for some reason or a'nutter, was removed. As a former merged article there should at least be a redirect to the original target page (or, as an alternate, bring back the original page). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and ship to RFD as per Utopes. While this isn't a useful redirect, the article could become useful. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POEE[edit]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Restore POEE, Delete POEE.org & Poee.org (which, from wayback snapshots, does not appear to be operated by the original POEE) DefaultFree (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article should not be restored, as per WP:BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it turns out there are no non-primary sources to restore POEE in the article, that doesn't call for deletion of the redirect. WP:RFD#D10 supports deletion If (1) the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and (2) the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. (2) is currently true, but (1) is not, as there isn't scope for a full standalone Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric article. There isn't a general prohibition on redirects not mentioned in the target, only specific prohibitions in specific situations that don't apply here (WP:RFD#D8, WP:RFD#D10). Also see WP:RFD#K5 and the POEE pageview stats - it has several daily pageviews, even before being RfD'd. DefaultFree (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore. This is associated with the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention at target. #8 above "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. " and #10 from above "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." This cannot be expanded into an article based on current information. And the article should not be restored unless independent sourcing can be found and based on BURDEN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history the term used to have its own page and was merged. Merges usually get redirects, yes? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles get merged, then the merged content is deleted, then the redirect is deleted. This happens often. Veverve (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • POEE was the original organizatioanal denomination of Discordianism, and is mentioned at the article on the book. What seems determinative to this nomination is that this used to have its own article, which was merged in 2005 (the redirect/merge is the subject of this discussion), which goes to show its connection to the redirect target is substantial enough to allow this redirect to stay. The original article contained: "Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric or POEE is a manifestation of the Discordian society. According to the Principia Discordia it is a tribe of philosophers, theologians, magicians, scientists, artists, clowns, and similar maniacs who are intrigued by Eris goddess of confusion and her doings. Furthermore it states that 'POEE subscribes to the Law Of Fives of Omar's sect' and 'POEE also recognizes the Holy 23..'. Paratheo-Anametamystikhood can be taken to mean "equivalent deity, reversing beyond-mystique". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, section has been partially restored with a third-party source and others are available. Skyerise (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Puducherry[edit]

no such role exists or has existed -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George W's palace[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Possibly non-neutral name. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled George W’s palace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajnibala[edit]

The redirect is for non-notable character not listed in the target article. The Google search returns many more relevant results that can be notable. Delete to avoid confusion. Alternatively, within Wikipedia, a plausible possible redirect is Saglikade Bombabomb where Rajnibala is a character. Викидим (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black French (disambiguation)[edit]

Until yesterday, Black French was a disambiguation page with two entries: Black French people and Immigration to France. Then another user removed the second entry, which I agree with. Therefore I redirected Black French to Black French people. I don't believe a disambiguation page is needed, as "Immigration to France" doesn't seem like a page someone would be looking for if they search for "Black French". Kk.urban (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amc interview with the vampire[edit]

Redirects are not the same thing as search engines, this version seems unlikely to be directly linked. Mason (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a theoretically plausible search term, but I do concede that it doesn't seem to get much (any?) use. I mostly object to the implication behind nominator's assertion that "redirects are not the same thing as search engines", which implies that the vast majority of useful redirects need to be deleted. Not so. Redirects merely need to be useful to be kept, per WP:CHEAP. If WP:PANDORA has a use, and usually I say it doesn't, I'd say that this is a good case for it-- nominating redirects simply because they are things that people might type into a search box is not how we do things here, nor how we should do things here. Redirects based on things that honestly and plausibly might be typed into a search box is practically the definition of a good redirect. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because <channel name> <show name> is not an unusual or unreasonable title. This is the equivalent of specifying "Disney's Cinderella", when you want to make sure people know that you're talking about the famous film and not the generic fairy tale. In this case, it means "the version of the Interview with a Vampire franchise that was published by AMC (and not the book or the other ones)", and there's nothing wrong with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This topic would not be specified this way on Wikipedia. We are not a search engine that accepts dubious variations on any topic as redirects. The carelessness through lack of any formatting, plus the creator being partially blocked as a result of their redirect creations, leads me to believe that this redirect is wholly unnecessary. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per #8 because "Amc interview with the vampire" verbatim is not found in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 13:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garv Sangwan[edit]

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was originally an article with two inline citations. jlwoodwa, "not mentioned" isn't a criteria except when the redirect is "novel or very obscure synonym" per WP:RFD#DELETE. Since there's more than just the redirect in the page history, I wonder whether we should be considering whether the subject is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports), rather than just whether we want it to be redirected to this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afflux[edit]

No mention at target, and it is only a word of which only a definition can be given (WP:NOTDICT), so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Discordian calendar. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Literally don't know how flowing air or water relates to even Discordian calendar or Discordianism Okmrman (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok apparently, Afflux is a holyday. Still gonna keep my vote unless there is some other reasoning since most people probably know afflux from the actual word. Okmrman (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, have done so and changed by !vote here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this relisted? There's no relist template. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominika Hašková (Q105156345)[edit]

Per longstanding consensus redirects with Wikidata codes aren't useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Makes sense. But for context, I wish you had added a link to prior discussion on this consensus or referred to a guideline. Grk1011 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also concur that a link to the relevant consensus/policy would have been helpful when listing this nom. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 12[edit]

Penny station[edit]

Unlikely a flag stop is the primary topic for this generic term. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not only is this the primary topic according to my research, it's the the only notable topic with this exact name - the only other thing that might be notable (but I'm not convinced it actually is) is called Copper Penny Station and there is no content about that on en.wp anyway. Additionally, this redirect is the result of a BLAR so it should be taken to AfD if you want it deleted, but as previous AfDs for Canadian flag stops resulted in a consensus to redirect we'd likely be back here anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ponton station[edit]

Unlikely a flag stop is the primary topic for this generic term. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't believe "Ponton Station" is a generic term; I could only find two instances: this flag stop's redirect and "Great Ponton Station" in the UK. I spent hours on the articles associated with this route; see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. Others agreed with redirects for all these flag stops. I think there will be an occasional search for this term. Redirects are cheap. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is the only line with a station with that exact name. Train stations on this line used to have their own articles but they were either WP:BLARed or redirected per AfD, so general consensus is to keep these train stations as redirects. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

...this is a ridiculous title. Nothing about "speaking fast" means that we should remove the spaces between every word within this slogan, even if people try to say this all in one breath. Would not make sense to have space-less titles for all fast phrases. As it's not expected for any other title, it would not be expected here, and is an unlikely search term. Views have plummeted since last time and now only seem to be due to the novelty of a 71-character redirect written like so. Was previously deleted at RfD. (Note: It was cited in the past RfD that this is the "first title that comes up when typing 'Twoal'"; this is explainable as it's the only page on Wikipedia that starts with "Twoal", and therefore is the only titlematch after those five characters) Utopes (talk / cont) 18:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Other note: The page has been indef fully protected, and an edit request has been put out for the nom template.) Utopes (talk / cont) 18:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm split. On the one hand, this is an actual 1975-era slogan, and the image in the article shows it being typed out this way in official media, including the complete lack of spaces between words. On the other, I don't see anyone typing it out like this in the search bar, as multiple people have pointed out.
I'd also like to point out that we do already have a LOT of variations of the redirect Two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun, all with subtle changes to how it's typed out (are there commas? Is there a hyphen between "all" and "beef"? Is there a period at the end? Is there an en dash, or em dash, right before "on a sesame seed bun"? Et cetera), as well as the redirect Two all beef patties, all of which point to the same target.
In any case, what I do know is that if kept, the target is definitely correct, do not retarget. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the use in official marketing. Sure, not every slogan said fast should have a redirect like this, but when marketing particularly emphasizes it, it's a reasonable redirect to have. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Leave this redirect in place. Christopher Rath (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and the lack of any evidence that anything has changed since the last discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see any reason to delete this; not harmful, was even used in marketing. Skynxnex (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chequia[edit]

Czech republic in Asturian (?). WP:RFD#DELETE #8. Викидим (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chipre[edit]

Cyprus in Spanish. Little affinity between the language and the topic. WP:R#DELETE #8. Викидим (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladés[edit]

Spanish for Bangladesh. Since Spain was not involved there, makes little sense. Delete. Викидим (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Scrabble Championship 2023[edit]

No information in the article that was last up-to-date in 2019 (the championship was held). Delete to avoid confusion until the data appears in the article. There are no other redirects of this type. Викидим (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

جمادى الآخر أو جمادى الثان[edit]

Unlikely search term. MSMST1543 (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, looks to be a pretty standard WP:RLANG, with these two variations listed immediately in the lead. Not an unlikely search term, were there other reasons for this nomination? Utopes (talk / cont) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this redirect different from a redirect from level or stage to level (video gaming)? MSMST1543 (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not at all similar to that redirect (but WP:OTHERSTUFF would apply even if it were) - this redirect is unambiguous, mentioned at the target and is the name for the subject in a relevant local language. The other redirect had WP:XY issues and could refer to multiple different types of level and/or multiple different types of stage. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not the name of the subject in Arabic. It’s two names separated by “or” with the last word misspelled. MSMST1543 (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Utopes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracfone promo code[edit]

No information about promo codes is present at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There was a terribly spammy article at this title once, on 26 February 2006, but it was redirected after less than a day, and it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell if restored. Also, Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for distributing promo codes of any sort. Duckmather (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a 2006-era BLAR of what would today probably end up deleted for being basically an advertisement. History is not significant enough for us to keep. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deactivate per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At minimum spam-adjenct awhile not being referred to as a phrase. Skynxnex (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Out Boy's fourth full-length album[edit]

why does this exist? for one, infinity on high is the fob's third full-length album and I looked at the page views for this redirect and nobody is using it Cherrell410(t · c) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a search engine, leave this title to a Google search. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of pageviews and inaccuracy making this an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexity AI[edit]

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

Frankie Goes To Hollwood[edit]

Implausible typo. No pages link to it, therefore it can be deleted. 8086-PC (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unlikely. Hollywood is easy enough to spell, and would be completely unnecessary to have "Hollwood", "Bollwood", and similar for all other pages that include Hollywood in the title. Notably, Hollwood doesn't exist, and this is the only page that contains "Hollwood" in any capacity in the title (besides Hollwood Victory Caravan). Utopes (talk / cont) 17:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hekt[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. External searches don't pull up anything related to this scale, although it appears to be an alternative name for Heqet, says Google. However, it does not appear at Heqet (our page on Wikipedia uses "Heket", but Google's definitely uses "Hekt"). In any case, "Hekt" is short enough to have a surplus of other mentions on Wikipedia as a word, appearing across the board in terms of viability as a redirect. Also sometimes short for "Hektor" and several others. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per this source, Heinz Bohlen, one of the namesakes of the Bohlen–Pierce scale, described the hekt in this paper (cited in the original German as source 2 in the article) as an alternative measurement to a cent, such that 100 hekts divide each step in the Bohlen–Pierce scale. I found a couple of other sources using the hekt measurement searching Google scholar: [38] and [39]. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LITTLEORPHAN[edit]

While seemingly in reference to the pronunciation of "ANI" as being for "(Little orphan) Annie", I fully thought a shortcut with this name would have been in reference to little orphaned pages on Wikipedia. Anyone familiar enough with the WP culture of "ANI sounds like Annie therefore Little Orphan is a functional redirect", and can solve those literary gymnastics on the dime, would also be familiar enough to use one of the several other more-convenient avenues of reaching this noticeboard. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another discussion from you about ANI redirects? What's next, you're gonna RfD WP:CESSPIT? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. In any case, that particular title has been at RfD four times since 2009, while this was made in 2021, with only one user, and hasn't been discussed here ever. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree that this is a title that is implausible, I just found odd that you nominated so many ANI redirects. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suppose I appreciate the come-around despite the opening rudeness. I promise I'm not out to kill fun! 😁 There's plenty of other titles with more longevity. ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 08:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, THIS one we can softify and tag as Humorous. The argument against Wikipedia:Room101 -- that it's actively harmful to compare ANI to a torture chamber-- doesn't apply here. This is just a cute pun. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would this page go here instead of WP:ORPHAN, with "little" being a likely term for orphan stubs? Specifically Wikipedia:Orphan#Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan, which details the "little orphans" that are hard to repair. At least Room 101 doesn't share a name with any existing Wikipedia topics that it could be confused by. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I uh, somehow missed that bit. You're right in that some section of WP:ORPHAN might be a better target.
    Maybe we could disambig between ANI and ORPHAN somehow? ...I do feel like ORPHAN has greater pull probably... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'd be fine with retargeting it to WP:ORPHAN, it's not really a plausible search term for that, so I'm leaning delete. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't hurting anything, I doubt anybody has actually experienced confusion when trying to find info on orphan stubs and going there instead. There's no real reason to delete a mild pun that isn't causing any harm. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to WP:ORPHAN as I think would be a better target. I get the joke but I don't think it's useful for us here. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per #5 the redirect makes no sense. I don't see an argument for a retarget because the suggestion also makes no sense as the redirect is not mentioned at the suggested new target. TarnishedPathtalk 10:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format specifiers[edit]

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • disamig per nom -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move %d to Format specifiers. Jay 💬 16:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambig or move?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format string[edit]

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • disamig per nom -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move %d to Format specifiers. Retarget Format string to Format specifiers. Jay 💬 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fleshed out Disambig would make sense, but I don't see a disambig as called for just between printf and scanf. Unix manuals and technical manuals are always referring to Printf Format Strings (which are used by many tools), when the word Format String is used, but it's exceptionally rare to find anything other than C manuals referring to scanf strings. The concept of a Format String is a much broader topic, and there are many other kinds of format strings that could be discussed besides the C stdio library - such as strftime strings, Awk, Python f-strings, .Net Format strings , etc. Scanf is a specialization of printf - these two redirect targets would be referring to the same subject matter and Printf and Scanf should link to each other (or a common topic) anyway, regarding the discussion of Format strings, because Scanf format strings are Printf format strings with some additions, removals, and a change of interpretation. The current Scanf article doesn't really address how Scanf formats are different and unique from Printf strings, For example the %[ or %* syntax for strings such as %80[^\n] are not laid out. That is not really an issue.. I would not expect either of the Printf and Scanf articles on Wikipedia to serve as a technical manual or programming tutorial for these functions. I would think it should suffice to have a discussion on what format strings are for Printf and Scanf in one place, and Link to the official BSD or GNU C library's documentation. I say Printf, because the printf article has the better discussion of Format specifiers, and Scanf's is limited, except where they link to the Printf article --Mysidia (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mysidia: Well, since as you correctly said "format string" is a more general topic than C's printf/scanf and we currently don't cover it anywhere, we should delete per WP:REDYES, no? Then an article that covers all the contexts format strings can appear in should be written at format string. Nickps (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to free space for an article per user:Nickps. The idea is present in many APIs (not just languages, C and Python include, for example, strftime/strptime/datetime with their own format specifiers, etc.). It is relatively easy to find non-language-specific sources of good quality. --Викидим (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pensiero[edit]

I cannot figure it out the purpose of this redirect. Pensiero is the Italian word for thought, and as an Italian I have never heard of it in association with sketching/drawing, nor Wiktionary mentions anything related to sketching/drawing (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pensiero). "Pensiero" is not mentioned in the target page and a search for "drawing" + "pensiero" on Google only gives false positives. Cavarrone 15:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. @Cavarrone: "pensiero" + sketch yields results, see this, or this. Primo pensiero seems to mean very rough sketch. I don't know any Italian, nor am I trained in the arts, so I could be mistaken. I would vote keep if this RfD was for primo pensiero. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 20:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the explaination, side note in Italian primo pensiero means first thought / first idea / early conceptualization, it is not really a synonimous of "sketch" but rather a definition of it and is not specifically related to art or drawing (eg. look at "primo pensiero" search results on it.wikipedia), even if can certainly be used in that context. Cavarrone 21:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 23:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pensiero (song) exists, so if this closes as delete that should probably be moved to the base title (unless there's some other topic by the same name which needs disambiguation). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

📵[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I'm going to mark this for speedy deletion since there were suggestions in the original deletion discussion to redirect it to Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette, which quickly got put down but someone still redirected it here anyways. I'm just gonna make this discussion to see if the discussion still holds up since it happened all the way back in 2015. Okmrman (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previous discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#📵 Okmrman (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the time of that discussion in August 2015 this was a redirect to Mobile phones and driving safety, the present target was considered but rejected and it closed with a consensus to delete. The present iteration was created in February 2016, but as it has a different target (and things might have changed in 9 years) I've declined a G4 speedy deletion nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, disambig or write a broad concept article. There should be a disambig or broad concept article about prohibition/restriction and similar of mobile phone use. In addition to the current target, such is discussed (in various contexts) at Mobile phone jammer, Mobile phones in prisons, Mobile phones on aircraft, Mobile phone use in schools, Mobile phones and driving safety, Radio quiet zone and possibly others. In the absence of such a page, then we should target where the character is mentioned. There are three such pages but No symbol#Unicode and fonts is by far the most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are so many different ways to interpret this emoji, the majority of readers are going to be disappointed. Cremastra (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what ways other than "no mobile phones" can you interpret this? Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mobile phone#Use. That section has subsections on the prohibition/restriction of mobile phones in various contexts, such as while driving, while walking and in schools. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the main section, and most of the subsections, are about the opposite of "no mobile phones" I think this would be a very confusing target so I don't support this suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good thing; explaining where mobile phones are allowed is good context for establishing where mobile phones are not allowed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to use this redirect I would be looking for information about where, why and/or how mobile phone use is prohibited or restricted, not information about where they aren't. I was confused about why you were suggesting a target that was the opposite of what the symbol means, having already read your rationale for suggesting it. Someone who doesn't have that context will likely be even more confused.
    I intend to draft something better (probably a broad concept page, but I'm not certain yet) but it'll likely be Monday or Tuesday before I get time. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I originally explained, the section I recommend does have information about where, why and/or how mobile phone use is prohibited or restricted. That section could be better formatted to suit those needs, as well as include other information and links to eg mobile phones in prison or mobile phones on aircraft. If you feel that section is confusing (I have no idea where you get that sense from), that is where I would suggest your efforts be spent. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The section is not confusing in the context of the article. Arriving at that section when searching 📵 is what is confusing. Rearranging the article to account for one incoming redirect to it would not be an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted disambig/broad concept article hybrid at Restrictions on mobile phone use, it needs work but it's a better target than anything else we have. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you've taken the relevant concepts from Mobile phone#use and turned it into an outline form. To demonstrate that all it takes is a bit of rearranging and adding of sections to make it "less confusing", I present Mobile phone#Restrictions. A separate page is wholly unnecessary. -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to a better target, do not delete. An emoji is a valid search term. Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harrow View[edit]

Redirects to an article that does not mention the term. As a residential development, can be notable on its own. WP:RFD#DELETE #10. Викидим (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • TFL has an entry for it so maybe it should be mentioned at the target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were some text about HW on the Harrow page, redirect might have meaning. As-is, it generates confusion. Викидим (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:Pedroperezhumberto#Deletion discussion about Harrow View. Pinging @Pedroperezhumberto: here. Викидим (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added to the target yet. Notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alec "Smartalec" Baldwin[edit]

Can't find any evidence of this nickname actually being used for Baldwin in this way; he is called "Smart Alec" in some places ([40] [41]) but not to the extent that this redirect would be useful (no one is searching or entering this exact term). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unless there's discussion of this nickname in the target article, this is crossing into G10 territory, even if it's meant to be "funny". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York South[edit]

Have no clue why this would apply. Perhaps a wrong redirect they meant to put it to South Bronx. Searching this yields no results Moxy🍁 00:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only thing I could think of this meaning is "New York of the South", but apparently the primary term for that is Atlanta, which is where New York of the South redirects to. Could see a case for retargeting there but given that this isn't a meaningful phrase/search term, more inclined towards deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete - This redirect was almost certainly created to reference the idea that many people from the northern parts of the eastern seaboard, including and especially New York, like to move to Florida when they retire, making the state culturally more like the north than the south in many areas, or perhaps making the state a weird mottled mix of the two cultures side by side. The redirect isn't saying that Florida is "The New York of the South", it's actually suggesting that Flordia is literally "South New York" (rephrased as "New York South", the grammatical position of South acting kinda like a subtitle, "New York: South"), as in, an extension of New York into the south by means of citizen migration. That said, and knowing this is the reason for the redirect, I suggest we delete it unless the usage of this particular phrasing can be shown to be in broader use, as otherwise it could be misconstrued (as commenters above have done). Fieari (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Fieari, what I wrote doesn't preclude your supposition. I agree that "This redirect was almost certainly created to reference the idea that many people from the northern parts of the eastern seaboard, including and especially New York, like to move to Florida when they retire...". I think what you say is very likely what Winnebaggo had in mind when the editor created the redirect, boldly creating it on a whim without checking to see if there were any sources to back it up. Just as an aside, I remember cruising Collins Avenue in Miami Beach in the late '50s, when the Art Deco hotels were still in their original, slightly decrepit glory (this was the first time I lived in Florida). Even though I was just a little kid, I was aware that New Yorkers came down for the winter and that many of them retired there. My dad's best friend and business partner was a Jewish guy from Long Island.;-) Carlstak (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, barring proof that it's actually used in this manner, this is solidly WP:NEO. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The one instance of "New York South" I could find on Google was a link to a map of NYC. Even the creator of the redirect was not clear as to what it meant. - Donald Albury 14:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Abd-al-Rahman I of the Umayyad Sultanate[edit]

Unique for Wikipedia. Not seen in the wild. Unlikely to be typed due to complexity.. Delete. Викидим (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Karlomann I[edit]

This misspelling is in Wikipedia only. Delete to avoid confusion. Викидим (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete two errors so unlikely misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and as an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - note my comment in the "King Karlomann" discussion below, but it seems that Carloman I was also known as Karlmann, but not Karlmann I. I don't know why. Besides that, I think one "King Karlomann" redirect is enough. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Karlomann[edit]

This misspelling is unique to Wikipedia, Google does not know about it. Delete. Викидим (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete two errors so unlikely misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Carloman, a disambiguation page listing the many kings of the Franks known by the same name. The Franks spoke a Germanic language in which the kings were called Karlmann, and it's also written in Latin as Karlomanus; Karlomann is a plausible misspelling of both. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 11[edit]

CounterfeitElectronicComponents[edit]

Improper title format that gets next to no page views. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not one of the original camelCase redirects. Existed at this title for less than a day after moving a page from userspace, unlikely search term and not a useful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not {{R from CamelCase}}; title existed for less than 24 hours, 13 years ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Shotland[edit]

I am nominating this redirect for deletion due to lack of relevance. There was no mention of this person on the target page at the time of the redirect's creation, nor is there now (or anywhere else on enwiki, for that matter). An internet search reveals that there is a science teacher with this name, but no specific connection to peptide bonds that I can discern. Quesotiotyo (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertqwert[edit]

Implausible redirect 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 17:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep [Delete; after sleeping on this, I agree with everyone]. Plausible and similar combinations are included at Password strength and List of the most common passwords. Perhaps retarget to the latter as a reasonable r without mention.—Alalch E. 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many hits, but the vast majority are assorted usernames, test strings, etc. No one I can find is using this to refer to the keyboard layout. Rusalkii (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would have supported a redirect to list of common passwords if this password was actually listed there, but it is not. Without such a mention, I agree with nom that this is pretty much nonsense. Fieari (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Expectations (upcoming TV series)[edit]

Delete in the spirit of WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target was released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf. We shouldn't delete a redirect that is being used by readers with relative frequency. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this misleading redirect for a TV series that premiered 13 months ago and cannot be considered upcoming under any stretch of imagination. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. B.edit24(obligatory talk page) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We generally should not be using relative terms like "upcoming" in page titles, full stop, doubly so for a show that's already premiered. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 17:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep here we go again. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few more weeks/months as needed. We can delete it after usage dies down. No need to jump the gun here. Fieari (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I wouldn't consider 13 months after the series' release "jumping the gun"; not useful for editor time to sit around the rhetorical microwave, waiting for the redirect to cool off if it's just going to end up in the trash anyway. Not sure what a "re-look in a few weeks" would do after over a year. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'know, maybe someone should make a bot that would scan for (upcoming) redirects, check to see if pageviews have died down yet, and auto-nominate after a redirect falls below a certain threshold. Would cut down on the editor time needed here.
    That said, a redirect like this one can still be useful for a while after a series releases for two reasons: one, like other pagemove redirects, external links could be pointing towards the redirect that feed in a steady amount of traffic. Two, it can serve to alert someone who didn't know that the series/movie/game/book had released yet that "hey, it's out now, go watch/play/read it!" Both of those mean that such a redirect is still useful, and I'll note that one of the two scenarios I presented (that I'm not suggesting is operating here, although given how long it's been, it could be) does bar UFILM from actually functioning-- if an external source is linking to the redirect, it could take years before pageviews actually naturally die off. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedalanka, Bhattiprolu mandal[edit]

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

Curse bowl[edit]

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

Chat Control 2.0[edit]

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

Favorability[edit]

I just created it but I'm not sure anymore. I noticed willingness could mean the same. Or should it be targeted to Wiktionary? --MikutoH talk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps Dabify? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The personality trait of agreeableness has very little to do with the transient state of being favorable about something. Jcbutler (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now wondering if Attitude (psychology) would be appropriate, because attitude can be defined as some level of favorability or unfavorability. Jcbutler (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's get some !votes in here. If you're proposing to disambiguate, please mention which pages might be listed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think the most common reason someone would search for this is to find what a "Favorability rating" is, in the context of Opinion polls... but that article doesn't describe or define that term specifically, so it may not be the best target. Crosswiki'ing to wiktionary won't provide the information to the searcher either, as it just defines the word and doesn't discuss or illuminate how it is used, particularly in politics, where someone might be confused about it. I feel like this may actually be a potential article in the making, but I'll be honest and say I don't want to do it. I'm also not sure where this redirect should go. Maybe leaving it as a WP:REDLINK would be best? I'm not sure! Fieari (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wikt:favorability. Redirects are cheap and making it a soft redirect makes it much more helpful than having the reader stare at a bunch of search results. Also, both Google and DuckDuckGo mostly bring up dicdefs, so I don't think it'd hurt if we had another. Duckmather (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macmillan Digital Publishing[edit]

Not mentioned at target article, and google search found nothing about it. DrowssapSMM 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not mentioned. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gullible.info[edit]

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

Forced-birther[edit]

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

Grizzly-1[edit]

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

Gris (card game)[edit]

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

Gribbly[edit]

No mention of "grib" at the target article, much less a something or someone that's "gribbly". Alternatives include Gribbly's Day Out which exists as a standalone article, as well as Gribble, Roman Gribbs, and the music director of Rec Room (video game). Zero idea or indication why this is going to Grunge currently, although it's done so since 2007. (Doesn't seem to have been mentioned within the former history of Grunger, which is where it used to point back in 2005). These 2005 redirects are... surely something, lol. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great September[edit]

No mention of "great" at the target article. Basically all google search results for a "great september" are in reference to the Great September Gale of 1815, although this is only a partial title match of that. Seems to be an assortment of different septembers that could also be considered "great".

This redirect seems to very much be a product of its time, as this particular September '93 was a lot more "current" in 2005 than it is in 2024. With no mention, a "great September" could refer to a lot of things. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or disambiguate - Only dab'ify if someone comes up with a list of potential targets. Otherwise, delete as ambiguous. Fieari (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Firewall of America[edit]

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

Goulash (magazine)[edit]

This is a local(?) satirical(?) magazine published by a boarding school. Zero standalone notability, existed as two sentences that were BLAR'd immediately into the school it was published from. No mention of "goulash" anywhere at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention No redirect. To be honest, I doubt if this magazine is even real. Couldn't find anything in Jstor and Gscholar Ca talk to me! 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's probably real, honestly, but just so local that it has no electronic archives, as many a student magazine do 😅 Utopes (talk / cont) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbino's Quest[edit]

A fictional element and/or creative work that is not mentioned at the target. "Gorbino" does not appear at the target, nor does "Gorbino" appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Much less their quest appearing anywhere on Wikipedia; no quest is ever alluded to at the target page either. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • gorbino's quest is a fictional game and recurring... "thing" there, and probably maybe the setting of one of the levels
this is just like gorbino's quest. this is the gorbino's quest of redirects i'd keep if a mention can reasonably be made (probably in the plot section), or weak delete otherwise cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • gorbino's quest is found in cruelty squad and i wholeheartedly promise you anybody who form some bizarre reason searches for "gorbino's quest" on wikipedia is looking for the game's article Formaldehydemaster (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:CRUFT + unmentioned. We're not the Cruelty Squad wiki, and pageviews reflect that-- this redirect gets practically no views whatsoever. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mentioned enough in the game that it is worth looking up to determine if it is an actual game (possibly by the developer of Cruelty Squad). It turns out it is an entirely fictional element but the redirect is useful for a reader looking for that information. It'd be better if there were a mention in the target article, though. (I found and used that redirect back in 2021 in that context, and then added rcats to it afterwards.) (A redirect for just "Gorbino" would not be useful, though, and one does not currently exist either.) --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Thing (Jake Miller song)[edit]

No such song with this title at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 2003[edit]

More likely to refer to the video game FIFA Football 2003. O.N.R. (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig. Google results are a roughly even three-way split between the world cup, the video game and events relating to FIFA in 2023. I haven't found a good target for the latter, but a dab between the first two is viable with or without that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could maybe plug a "See also: FIFA" at the end of the DAB? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as outlined above as there are multiple things this could refer to. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert back to the status quo of redirecting to FIFA Football 2003. The video games are commonly referred to as "FIFA [year]", the World Cup is not. While it's ambiguous, the video game is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and a hatnote should be employed for the World Cup. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my research, in practice it seems there is no primary topic for this title. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Show your work then. Per the video game article, it is known as simply FIFA 2003, and my research verifies that it is common for the video game (eg: [42][43][44][45][[46]). I don't see the World Cup referred to as "FIFA 2003" and the exact phrase does not appear in the World Cup article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not doubting that it's a common name for the video game. However, as I explicitly said in my first comment, google results show it is also a common name for the world cup and events relating to FIFA that happened in 2023. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Google results do not show that. -- Tavix (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we must be seeing different google results, because I've looked again, this time in a private window, using the search term FIFA 2023 -Wikipedia my top 30 results are as follows: Video game 13, World cup 10, FIFA events 5, Fifa Club World Cup 2. That's very clearly no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Use quotes, this is an exact phrase. FWIW, my results with that exact search are 27-2-1 in favor of the video game. -- Tavix (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, my own results (for "FIFA 2023" -wikipedia) are the following:
  • FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 (fifa.com)
  • Trophy and award winners, for FIFA in 2023 (fifa.com)
  • Amazon listing for FIFA 23 on Xbox One
  • 2023 FIFA tournaments in photos (fifa.com)
  • Forbes article talking about what happened to FIFA in 2023
  • FOX Sports page for the Women's World Cup
  • Reddit, linking to discussions of the video game AND FIFA itself AND the cup
  • Amazon listing for FIFA 23 on PS4
  • FIFA 2023 listing on Sony Store Malaysia for... some reason... Google, you know I'm in the Southern US, right???
  • FOX Sports for Women's World Cup 2023
  • fifa.com again, Watch the best goals from the Women's World Cup
  • FIFA 2023 for PS5 listing on... Toys R Us UAE!?!? Google pls
  • Olympics.com page about the Women's World Cup
  • EA Answers page about FIFA 2023 Career Mode
  • okay I don't know what language that's in, Spanish? It's fifa.com tho so I'll assume it's the World Cup and/or FIFA itself
  • Youtube link about how to play FIFA 2023 on Android
  • Dick's Sporting Goods listing for FIFA 2023 themed soccer balls
Summary, my search is all over the place, with no clear primary target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: Can you do some critical thinking about what those results tell you? Of these, how many are an exact title match for "FIFA 2003"? Are you are getting results for the World Cup, but they are simply within the phrase "FIFA 2003 Women's World Cup" (or similar) without solely calling the subject "FIFA 2003"? If so, that's what disambiguators call a "partial title match" and should not be used in a (hypothetical) disambiguation. Would someone simply search "FIFA 2003" looking for the World Cup if it's not used, branded, or abbreviated in that fashion as often as someone looking for a video game that is commonly abbreviated this way? Furthermore, do you think an arbitrary dumping of algorithmic Google search results is a good proxy for determining primary usage on Wikipedia? -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My search results for the search "FIFA 2023" -Wikipedia -"FIFA's" (the latter exclusion becuase many of the results were for that, but you'd discount them as irrelevant whether they are or not):
  • 2× Amazon listing of the game on XBox
  • "Smart Home Sounds" listing of the game for PS4
  • FOX Sports Women's World Cup 2023 teams
  • 5 reddit threads, 3 about the game, 1 about the Women's world cup, 1 about working at FIFA, 1 I can't work out.
  • FOX Sports Women's World Cup 2023 news
  • Olympics.com Answering questions about the Women's World Cup
  • Medium piece about the game
  • BBC article about the Women's World Cup
  • EA Answers HQ (about the game)
  • YouTube video about the best 30 goals in FIFA competitions in 2023
  • The FIFA Code of Ethics in Spanish
  • BBC Sport article about the Women's World Cup group stages
  • YouTube Viode about the game
  • "Creative Bloom" article about the Women's World Cup (mainly the logo and similar design elements)
  • A mod for the the game
  • 3 Google Books results, 1 about the human rights risk at the World Cup, 1 that is a 2023 publication about the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, 1 I don't know - the snippet includes "FIFA 2023 co-hosting plan" but not enough context to make sense of that.
  • Marca.com about "The Best FIFA 2023" - "what time and where to watch the FIFA gala on TV and online"
  • Microsoft Community about the game on xbox
  • 2 Results about buying the game, 1 in Malaysia, 1 in the UAE.
  • A Youtube video that I think is about comparing the goals in the Women's World Cup with the goals in the game
  • An article about all things FIFA in 2023 including the world cup and the game.
So, even discounting partial title matches, the indication overall is that there is very much no primary topic for the exact phrase. And yes, google search results are one good indication of what people are looking for with a given search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
forgive my possible unsmartness, but where did the 2023 part come from?
i thought this was about 2003 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not entirely certain, 'twas Thryduulf who started talking about 2023 instead of 2003 and I think we all just followed suit without realizing? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the proposed target "FIFA 2003" the primary topic? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - to FIFA Football 2003. As discussed above, the World Cup is not referred to as "FIFA x year". The FIFA games are. I appreciate the research regarding primary topic, but the fact is that the 2003 Women's World Cup is simply not referred to as FIFA 2003. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the fact is that the 2003 Women's World Cup is simply not referred to as FIFA 2003 that's true only if you disregard all the evidence presented above that shows it is. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No such evidence has been provided. Which sources refer to the 2003 Women's World Cup as "FIFA 2003"? -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean no such evidence other than the evidence presented by myself and Lunamann of multiple sources referring to multiple topics, including the women's world cup, as "FIFA 2023"? Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't see anything in the search results that y'all regurgitated without context which refers to the 2003 FIFA World Cup as "FIFA 2003". Everything Women's World Cup related looks to be WP:PTMs for that specific term. Help me out then: which sources specifically refer to the 2003 Women's World Cup as "FIFA 2003"? -- Tavix (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 per above. J947 ‡ edits 08:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try — disambiguate or retarget to FIFA Football 2003?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 per above. It's looking like that'd be the only viable target for this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 - I've read the arguments that there is no primary topic, but even in the displayed google searches listed above none of the other topics are referred to as FIFA 2003 (or 2023), it's just a google search the has popped up references to something FIFA did in 2003 (or 2023). The thing that is referred to as FIFA 2003 (or 2023) as a proper noun is the video game, and nothing else as far as I can see. Fieari (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 as above. Most likely target. Personally I only thought of the video game. GiantSnowman 09:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FIFA Football 2003. I've never heard world cups referred to in that way, and have almost exclusively heard FIFA videogames referred to as `FIFA 2003` or whatever other year. The provided "evidence" for redirecting to the event is a google search, which is not a reliable secondary source. Brindille1 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gib gnab[edit]

No mention of this term at either of the target pages, and no mention of this term on all of Wikipedia. One of these was created 19 years before the other, which doesn't matter but still interesting. I've now come to understand this term being "Big Bang" backwards, but without context these have debatable use as unmentioned synonyms, and probably shouldn't have differing targets as "gib gnab" and "gnab gib" both come up at seemingly the same frequency? Utopes (talk / cont) 06:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually two of them are very old, and yes this does matter. The older a redirect the more likely it is that it is used somewhere off wiki. Hence the injunction Therefore only delete redirects which are very new or harmful.
I have added a section to the Big Crunch article, therefore:
Retarget all to Big Crunch#In culture. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I should have been more clear @Rich Farmbrough:, I did not mean to imply that there wasn't a difference between old and new redirects. I was saying that in this case there wasn't a difference in how I felt for both, i.e. I would push for the same outcome for both targets. Keep both, delete both, retarget both, etc. (I wouldn't want to keep just one and not the other. Either all or none, and at the same target.) Generally speaking, the older a page is the more likely it has external links, you are correct. However, now that there is content for this term, both can safely end up pointed there, so thank you for the content you created at Big Crunch. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Rich Farmbrough. Thank you! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Television International Studios[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per the outcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Paramount Television International Studios, where incoming links were the hurdle straight after a page move, I've given it enough time for the actual targets and/or rdr targets to be sorted out. The reason or rationale is the same as its/the original listing. Intrisit (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Low German language[edit]

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

General OneFile[edit]

General OneFile not mentioned or discussed at target; the only mention of onefile is in an external link, and "general" is never used in relation to it. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Gale (publisher)#Products: where it is mentioned and seems like a more relevant page now. (Although something like this a redirect without a mention where it's verifiable is still useful to readers in many cases.) Skynxnex (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and authoritarianism[edit]

Used to target a section, since removed. The article does not talk about gender, and is a WP:XY situation as it stands. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RFDd10[edit]

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

DZHH-AM[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If deleted, incoming links from 75 pages need to be fixed if we don't want this to be a redlink. Jay 💬 09:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Mazzig[edit]

9 Google hits for this name, none of them seem to be this person. Can't find evidence they're referred to in this way. Rusalkii (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Guy Ritchie project/film[edit]

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

Snow White (live action)[edit]

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

Snow White remake[edit]

Could refer to most films listed at {{Snow White}}, such as Mirror Mirror (film) and Snow White and the Huntsman. There really is no expectation that this redirect references Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) since there have been so many film versions of Snow White that are not Disney-related. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Snow White (disambiguation), basically everything on that list after the first is a remake by definition. Alternatively, delete due to being vague and unhelpful (deletion is probably my first choice now that I think about it more), Wikipedia is not a search engine to figure out what article people are imagining in their heads by typing "remake" nowadays. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I'm striking my retarget !vote. Wikipedia is not a search engine, "remake" is not useful in the form of a redirect. Currently it refers to anything on that list, but it's too vague and subjective in doing so (as remake isn't mentioned). Would be ridiculous to have Foo remake target any disambiguation page with multiple pieces of fiction with the same title, so let Google or Wikipedia's search function figure it out. Delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Snow White (disambiguation) as plausible search by a reader. I'm also fine with delete due to the malformed "remake" modifier --Lenticel (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per Utopes, and tag as R from incomplete disambig. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator preference: Delete per above. The existence of the word "remake" and since it makes it so the redirect is not a word-for-word title variation of "Snow White" leave me to believe that the nominated redirect is better deleted than targeting a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TDVC[edit]

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

TDOTJ[edit]

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

LVER[edit]

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

"Getting high" and "Being high"[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep Being high and Retarget Getting high

GittiGidiyor[edit]

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

Nahdonnis Praji[edit]

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

Jerus Jannick[edit]

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

Quiggold[edit]

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

Vober Dand[edit]

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

April 10[edit]

Grind Time Now[edit]

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

William Melling (actor)[edit]

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

Wally Francis (CBSO)[edit]

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

Galactic Federation of Free Alliances[edit]

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

Gagori Kokalot[edit]

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

Gagori (album)[edit]

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

Gagori[edit]

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

Gabby and Ty[edit]

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

$10 calculator[edit]

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

$299[edit]

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

Sonichu.com[edit]

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

Season 7, 2016[edit]

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

Pehli Nazar Mein Dari Thi[edit]

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

Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay

Mahjong Horoki Classic[edit]

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

Insurance goal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#Insurance goal

Hockey bag[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#Hockey bag

Newbridge Capital[edit]

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

Efinancialcareers.com[edit]

Deletion, eFinancialCareers is no longer owned by DHI Group or Dice.com[1] Mjhobson (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dhi-group-inc-completes-spinoff-of-efinancialcareers-and-guides-to-a-return-to-total-revenue-growth-in-its-second-quarter-ended-june-30-2021-301323740.html

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with the other similar redirect mentioned by Jay.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:REDLINK Okmrman (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efinancialcareers.com concluded in 2017 that Efinancialcareers.com was not notable and that the website should redirect to Dice.com. The majority ownership of eFinancialCareers has been transferred from Dice.com parent company DHI Group, Inc. to eFC's management team. The press release quoted by the nominator says, "DHI will retain a 40% equity interest in eFC and have board representation." This is still significant ownership. This does not mean that eFinancialCareers should no longer redirect to Dice.com, where it is mentioned twice (once in the "History" section and once in the "Acquisitions by DHI Group, Inc" section. The remedy is to update Dice.com to note that eFinancialCareers is now 40% owned by Dice.com, not to delete the redirects. The redirects remain useful for readers who can read information about eFinancialCareers in Dice.com. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Jeez

Moira Sullivan (Smallville)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Moira Sullivan (Smallville)

Linda Baldwin (Coronation Street)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Linda Baldwin (Coronation Street)

Fucktarded[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#Fucktarded

Bhumi(Chennai)[edit]

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

Double the Trouble (album)[edit]

Salt evasion of Double the Trouble. Not mentioned at the current target or The Pussycat Dolls discography. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This existed in April 2007 before the salting on December 2007, this is not salt evasion. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The base name was unprotected in 2011 and re protected a few weeks later. I'm anyway not sure such salting should be indefinite as people who re create often go and notability changes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such album either at The Pussycat Dolls discography or anywhere else. The content originally at this page was moved to Double the Trouble and deleted at AfD. The resulting redirect then has a long history of IPs trying to get the rumoured album restored, until it was protected. Delete to be consistent with the non-disambiguated deletion. Jay 💬 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Cook (Lost)[edit]

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

Cort and Fatboy Show[edit]

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

Cheaper by the Dozen 3: The White House Wreck[edit]

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

Bella Bathrooms (company)[edit]

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

Beavecoon iCarly[edit]

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

Balita sa IBC Huling Ulat[edit]

Salt evasion of Balita sa IBC. Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aegis Limited (BPO)[edit]

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

Adi Gallia (Star Wars)[edit]

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

Kitster[edit]

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

G-Whizz[edit]

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

Po Nudo[edit]

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

Democratic Labor Party (historical)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete
@Vanderwaalforces, TarnishedPath, and Jay: There was a lot less than what there used to be, I started fixing those yesterday when there were 500+ links in mainspace, and meant to do them last night but got sidetracked waiting for a different page to be freed up. I didn't use AWB as after swapping the templates the list seemed fairly manageable, but I'm pretty sure this type of link-replacement is WP:AWB's bread and butter (i.e., collecting a list of all the pages that link to Democratic Labor Party (historical), and replacing the link to Australia, 1855). Utopes (talk / cont) 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes I guess your wrist suffered more here, hehe, but yeah, this is something should be easier with AWB or JWB…? I guess next time. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joever[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Joever

Augastus Ekka[edit]

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

Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer)

Clorinda (Once Upon a Time)[edit]

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

Amazonas Region[edit]

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

Raman Raheja (entrepreneur)[edit]

This is a weird case. The only reason this page exists is due to the creator working around the Raman Raheja title salt. The base name had been speedily deleted 3 times for A7 and G11, and this variant title lasted less than 24 hours as an article, before being WP:BLAR'd into the cricket league. Because there is only a passing mention of Raheja at the target, and no indication that Raheja is an entrepreneur, this redirect does not seem very useful without any content about Raheja being an entrepreneur at the cricket league page. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, while the redirect IS pointing to the correct location as per the BLAR'd article, I'm similarly in Utopes's boat in that I'm unsure Raheja counts as an entrepreneur. The only reason this redirect would be any help, is... to get around the salt, because nobody can put a redirect at Raman Raheja either-- because we don't, and can't, have the page Raman Raheja, someone typing Raman Raheja into the searchbar would quite quickly have their query autocompleted to Raman Raheja (entrepreneur), which... would then lead them to Legends League Cricket.
On the one hand, as shown by it being the only thing said BLAR'd article talked about, it's pretty clear that Legends League Cricket is the only thing Raheja is notable for, meaning a redirect to here (where he's the CEO) is warranted; however, THIS redirect is probably a bad idea. The only possible way forward I can think of is to Delete this redirect, then-- with a big MAYBE attached, because I'm not sure that we should do this-- unsalt and create Raman Raheja as a redirect to Legends League Cricket, before immediately protecting the redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not opposed to the solution proposed by Jay and Rosguill. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 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, CycloneYoris talk! 01:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Theme[edit]

Multiple flying themes exist inside and outside of soundtracks. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (soundtrack) describes a flying theme, The Matrix Reloaded mentions a flying theme, Flying (Taehyung Theme) exists as a redirect to BTS World: Original Soundtrack, as well as any other theme that plays while flying. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to a disambiguation page (yet to be created) consisting of the aforementioned pages. signed, Pat talk 01:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some thinking, I think having this Retarget to a disambiguation page wouldn't hurt. Okmrman (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Dabify per above Okmrman (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should retarget to the dab page-- I think this should BE the dab page. Dabify. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let search results do the work. The treatment of "flying theme" in the articles identified so far in this discussion is too brief for a disambiguation to be useful to readers. signed, Rosguill talk 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the absence of a drafted disambig page. Jay 💬 06:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Nose[edit]

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

Mos:english idioms[edit]

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

Nashid Al-Huriya[edit]

Not mentioned in page. The only place on the internet I can find this referenced is wikidata item Q25634003, which does put it as the anthem of the Republic of Egypt doesn't explain where the name comes from. I suspect an unlikely transliteration but don't know Arabic well enough to confirm this. Rusalkii (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Nashid al-Huriyya" is mentioned in the article Walla Zaman Ya Selahy. Peter James (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Peter as a compromise target. Jay 💬 06:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 9[edit]

The One Piece is real![edit]

Retarget either to Dark Fantasy (song)#Legacy or Patrick Fabian#Personal life as those sections both mention the subject, but the article it is redirecting to does not. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to state that the redirect is in fact a quote by the fictional character Whitebeard, which are his final words. This quote confirms that the One Piece (the treasure that the main character, Monkey D. Luffy, is looking for, and the namesake of the entire manga) exists. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of One Piece characters#Edward Newgate and tag as R from Quote (perhaps tag it as an Avoided Double Redirect to Whitebeard, or don't, given Whitebeard is Newgate), as it is the primary topic-- both suggested targets by the IP editor discuss the phrase in the context of the same meme, which is in reference to the scene Jalapeño mentioned, and while doing so use the Whitebeard redirect to link there. The current entry on Edward Newgate also alludes to this phrase-- ...just before he proclaimed that the One Piece is real and that it indeed exists.
If it's felt to be necessary, hatnoting to Dark Fantasy#Legacy (This is about the character whose last words were, "The One Piece is real!" For the internet meme that uses this quote, information may be found at Dark Fantasy#Legacy or something along those lines) may be an option, although I can't make the same recommendation for Patrick Fabian-- someone looking for information on the meme itself probably wouldn't be looking for a random celebrity who was asked to read off multiple internet memes, only one of which was the One Piece meme. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know the rules, and so do I[edit]

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

We're no strangers to love[edit]

This line is not mentioned at the target page and is unlikely to be searched for, instead of the easily-accessible title of the song. Notably though, this is the first line of the song, and is very often what one will hear during the course of a Rickroll. This line is mentioned at the article for Rickrolling, which somehow might just be a better target than the status quo... Utopes (talk / cont) 23:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; Retarget to Rickroll as second choice - Given the song's use in a meme, either is a plausible target. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 03:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: or retarget as Jeske has said above. It seems plenty likely to be searched for, seeing as it's the quite-memorable first line of a song often encountered unintentionally. jp×g🗯️ 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This lyric is covered at Rickroll. It isn't even mentioned at the song's article, so between these two options, the content on Wikipedia indicates Rickroll as the most helpful location. Because Wikipedia isn't a lyric of compendium, there is no benefit to teaching people the true name of a song by typing in the first lyric; Genius and Google Searching does that. If someone types in a topic on Wikipedia, they expect to receive encyclopedic content about the term, and such content does not appear at Never Gonna Give You Up as it currently stands. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My, my, this here Anakin guy[edit]

No mention of this lyric at the target page. Anakin never mentioned, people searching for this lyric instead of the title of the song are left without the context that was sought. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "The Saga Begins" is Weird Al Yankovich's parody of "American Pie", with this lyric being the first bar of the chorus. It's a plausible search term given the name of the song never appears in the lyrics at all, to my knowledge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 03:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as {{R without mention}} / {{R from search term}}, being the first line of the chorus -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Jéské Couriano. Plausible search term. DrowssapSMM 13:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, tagging a redirect with {{R without mention}} places the redirect in a maintenance category, Category:Redirects to an article without mention, that is cleared by adding a mention to the target article, deleting the redirects via WP:CSD, or nominating the redirects for WP:RFD ... meaning tagging the redirect as so then "keeping" the redirect is akin to kicking the can down the road, which is unhelpful since we are literally having the discussion about the redirect right now. Steel1943 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ordinarily I would agree with you, but this is an instance where people are more likely, if they didn't know the exact name of the song, to look up the lyric specifically due to thinking it's the title. As I mentioned, "The Saga Begins" never appears in the song as a lyric, while the redirect is the first line sung in the song's chorus. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So should every song have a redirect from the first line of the chorus if they don't know it? What if they don't know the first line, but they do know the second? What reliable sources allow us to verify that a song contains it's name in the chorus or not? Wikipedia is not the place to figure out names of songs from lyrics. Nobody uses Wikipedia for this purpose, because it doesn't work. How would people find this, from My my this here Anakin guy, or My my, this here Anakin guy, or My, My This Here Anakin Guy? It's a wholly unreliable metric. It would never be linked on any page (zero reason to wikilink a lyric). It would never appear on any page (as a lyric, it wouldn't appear anywhere else, and also not on the page unless we have encyclopedic content about the lyric). If you don't know the name of the song, you google search "My my this here anakin guy" and the very first result is The Saga Begins. This is not For the Longest Time where people might think that's the actual name of the song. Nobody actually thinks the song is actually called "My My This Here Anakin Guy" by Weird Al. This is would they'd type into their search engine, not Wikipedia. Typing this in a lyric into Wikipedia, under the pretense that it's not the name of the song, would be done so in order to find information directly pertinent to the lyric, and not to the song that they could've searched for in far less words. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze, everybody clap your hands![edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Freeze, everybody clap your hands!

Everybody clap your hands[edit]

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

Flexes[edit]

Someone that performs a Flex, or perhaps are flexing (and/or doing the flexing (dance) all the while), can be said to be someone who "flexes". Flexion does not seem to be the only use for this term. Wiktionary or disambiguation might also be suitable here? Utopes (talk / cont) 23:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fil d'Ecosse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Fil d'Ecosse

Fifi Bradlaugh[edit]

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

Eric Rodríguez, Adam Scott (baseball)[edit]

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

Fictional Jimbo Wales[edit]

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

Isaac ben bassat[edit]

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

Facebook Analytics[edit]

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

Facebook Click Identifier[edit]

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

Faketoshi[edit]

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

Factor through[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Factor through

Evolved Apes[edit]

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

Aaron Antonini, Grant Black, Dalton Roach[edit]

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

Email etiquettes[edit]

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

Ehlron Tay[edit]

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

EEUU[edit]

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

Frugality rules[edit]

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

Pic (Star Wars character)[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Room101[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Room 101 is a torture chamber included in George Orwell's 1984.

Is ANI dismal at times? Yeah it can be. Is there drama that occurs? That it does. Is it the most torturous place on all of Wikipedia? Even if it was, that's not a universal truth. ANI is not a torture chamber that contorts victims and exposes them to their deepest nightmares. It can be bad at times but CERTAINLY not "whailling-from-the-ninth-circle-in-pain" bad. If a page called WP:Torture Chamber popped up as a redirect to ANI, it would get R3'd ASAP imo. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-ify and tag as Humorous as per this discussion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Equating ANI with human torture is not humorous, but that's just me. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, but then again, I also don't find the idea of gorillas eating gerbils to be funny, so I just assume I don't get the joke. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my vote to softify is getting weaker by the second the more strong arguments against keep I see on this discussion-- special note goes to Ivanvector, taking aim at the idea that the redirect is harmless. I'll go out on a limb and outright state that I no longer oppose outright deletion-- my 'softify' vote from now on is mainly going to be against the idea of outright keeping (i.e. "if we keep, we shouldn't keep it as a hard redirect, we need to make it a soft redirect"). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely to be helpful/functional. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect is completely harmless. Wikipedia has a long tradition of funny redirects to internal pages, especially ANI. Some of them are WP:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES, WP:Great Dismal Swamp, WP:HAPPYPLACE, and WP:ALOTOFDRAMA. Aside from that, no actual argument has been made for why the redirect shouldn't exist or what policy/guideline it violates. It's a little piece of wiki-culture and history that isn't hurting anyone, and I find it useful. There's plenty of room for levity in internal project-space. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Torture chambers are not humorous, it is in no way accurate and, as WJBscribe once said, "we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums" in this manner. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: it isn't humorous to you. Comedy is inherently subjective, and gallows humor is a well established concept. I don't find real-life torture chambers funny, and if this were something like Wikipedia:Abu Ghraib prison I might agree with you. But nobody was tortured in Room 101 except fictional characters, so there's no risk of causing actual harm to anyone. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my apologies. If I ever see WP:ANI compared to a fictional torture chamber in the future, I'll be sure to let out a hearty guffaw in your honor. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Village stocks, an actual humour essay with a torture theme, or delete as second choice; do not keep. As a redirect to ANI it's pointless: it has no incoming links from discussions and likewise has no pageview activity. And as many have tried to argue in various ways over a number of years: it is actively harmful to compare one of Wikipedia's main dispute resolution forums with a work of psychological horror. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither the village stocks, nor ANI, nor anything else on Wikipedia is the worst thing in the world. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fittingly, this is Room 101 for useless redirects who have to be tortured into their targets. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 03:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear delete per above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watch channel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Watch channel

(London)derry[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wretched hive of scum and villainy[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Users for deletion[edit]

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

Kannagi (upcoming film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Kannagi (upcoming film)

The beach that makes you old[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#The beach that makes you old

Monkey squat[edit]

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

Sorority squat[edit]

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

Sam Pate[edit]

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

Logoic plane[edit]

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

Monadic plane[edit]

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

Phone computer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Phone computer

Redirects with trailing.[edit]

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

Public Transport in Newcastle[edit]

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 Newcastle often refers to the city in UK or the one in 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 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per Rosbif73 and Joseph2302. A7V2 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The disambiguation page would be inherently redundant and unmaintainable - anyone who sees Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this will probably search for either just "Newcastle" or Transport in the specific Newcastle they are referring to. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lich (Extinct World)[edit]

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

BMO (Extinct World)[edit]

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

Ice King (Extinct World)[edit]

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

Paradise Airport[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Paradise Airport

Adult anime[edit]

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

🌼[edit]

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

Dulah, California[edit]

Originally this was a stub article that was PRODded by me; another user removed the PROD and converted the article to a redirect. The problem is, the target does not mention Dulah at all, and (per the original stub) Dulah was nothing more than a rail siding located near Solimar. I find it incredibly unlikely that anyone would search for a rail siding, and even if they did, they won't find any information about it here. The article should have been simply deleted and so should this redirect. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The page was partially merged. I've made an attribution notice in an edit summary at the target to avoid attribution issues in case the page does get deleted. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I redirected the page because I merged content to Solimar Beach and redirects are cheap. The only other reason to keep the redirect is that if you search for the Solimar Beach community in GNIS, the only entry that comes up is Dulah; that's the only reason I started an article under Dulah in the first place, since Solimar Beach is used on local signage and I started the article way back when I assumed GNIS was reliable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak restore article (per WP:PROD, can be taken to AfD if desired), but could this name not be added to the current target? As things stand this is confusing for someone searching this. A7V2 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Aurora[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17#Larissa Aurora

Genie (feral child and etc.[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound... this nomination consists of every remaining redirect with unclosed parenthesis, of which there are now only twelve. All of these typos are not plausible to intentionally make on their own. Because there's been cumulatively 1000+ or so of these redirect types deleted over the last few months, this nomination seeks to determine whether there's a threshold that makes these redirects acceptable, or if one even exists. Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable. While it's good to have redirects from common misspellings lying around for ease of navigation on Wikipedia, the presence of implausible redirect errors sets unreasonable expectations and portrays the faulty notion to readers that "infinite typo variations are encouraged, regardless of likelihood", when this is not currently the case. For the most part, spelling variations are accepted in redirects; especially with words that are tricky to spell, having a set of titles with minor differences can be useful to capture likely, intentional errors. When it pertains to disambiguation, though, there will never be a time where errors in the act of disambiguation are expected, for any title. While someone might spell a title like Hampster with an intentional (but incorrect) "P", one can generally have 100% confidence that a title with a left parenthesis will contain a right parenthesis, and, as an extension, typing in a title that doesn't contain a right parenthesis will have a 0% likelihood of being redirected to the correct title, as it will never be correctly expected. The disambiguator is Wikipedia's "official insertion" onto the title based on other article names that co-exist here. The tagline's format can be safely assumed as error-free, or if there is an error in the disambiguation, that it will be corrected ASAP without hesitation. Being locked into keeping tabs on any and all errors within this "topic title guarantee" inherited from Wikipedia disambiguation precedent, just because of one (or twelve remaining) bad links on the internet, is just not worth for titles that are one punctuation mark away from the correctness that was already assumed beforehand. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. When typing in to the search bar, the search result will be autocompleted with the missing parentheses. As for websites that cannot handle parentheses, that is, as has been established quite clearly over the last few months, their problem, and not Wikipedia's-- they need to fix their formatting handling. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Note that I !voted delete on the last batch you nominated. This batch I'm !voting keep for the simple reason that they are demonstrably useful to someone... in that these redirects are all getting use (noting again that this is unlike the last batch). They're WP:CHEAP, they're useful, they're harmless. Note that I expressly do NOT support the creation of more of these things, for all the reasons cited by nom, but I don't think we should deliberately go out of our way to break someone's workflow just because it makes our database tidier. If, at some point in the future, these stop getting regular use for an extended period of time, I'd be happy to see them gone. But for now, they get use, they're unambiguous, they should stay. (No offense to nom, by the way, I appreciate getting community input on where the limits are / should be) Fieari (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari. Deletion would inconvenience readers without brining any benefits to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary. One parenthesis missing does not justify these redirects when the search function automatically fills in the desired results for anyone searching for them. These are just pointless redirects. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari and Thryduulf, and the previous discussions. Genie (feral child has gone down in use since the prior discussions except that it got over 6,500 hits on March 29, more than some articles get in a year. It's clearly still useful; Wikipedia's mission is to provide information to its readers, not to break things and hope that an external website notices (they won't). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:UNNATURAL typos. The search box fills in the parentheses for you, I doubt anyone is going to type an opening parenthesis, forget to close it, and then hit enter without selecting the correct option from search. As for other websites, that's their problem. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I think my past self would have (and did) support deleting these. But we come down to yet another delete these convention failing to uphold a challenge on its merits, and so it goes. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and WP:RDAB due to the missing end parentheses. Also, delete per precedence set at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")" and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14#Conjunction (grammar and etc.. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all — the assertion in the description "Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable." is vague and misleading: it hides the useful truth which is that "At least some of these links are NOT updateable.", for example in IRC chat logs (e.g. for "Address (geography"). Agreed with prior Keep all arguments that a small handful of such redirects are WP:CHEAP. The net-net here is that a small handful are providing more utility (fixing unchangeable slightly erroneous links to Wikipedia, for a smoother Wikipedia experience) than cost. That's also a reasonable standard to apply for future such exceptions (source of link is apparently unchangeable). The arguments for Delete all appear to mostly be forms of the "Perfect is the enemy of good" problem. Tantek (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all if you are going to rescue typos by redirection then why stop with close parenthese. Why not redirect E Mathematical Contant and Genie (ferral child) OrewaTel (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and RDAB, and also per precedence of previous discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 02:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per all above, also a) Aren't these only "getting used" because as people type in names, the auto-fill starts listing results and as they get to the end of the name, but before they type in the closing parathesis, the redirect without one populates to the bottom of the auto-fill box making it most obvious and easy to click on,(but at that point, the correct, full name is right there at the top of the results as well).

    b) It doesn't seem anyone wants to see more of these types of redirects created, so wouldn't deleting help with that? (There are people who literally spend all their time looking for pages to create, and having redirects like this to obstensibly compensate for typos in page names will just encourage the creation of more.)

    Their usage is a false positive, they don't really assist with anything, removing them will not hamper anyone's ability to search, and if we don't want these types of redirects, then we shouldn't be making a special exception to this group just because they exist. (jmho) - wolf 04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Island, Newfoundland and Labrador[edit]

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

April 8[edit]

EduTok[edit]

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

Echo Ranch Bible Camp[edit]

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

Drinkin About You[edit]

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

Drew Curtis' FARK.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Drew Curtis' FARK.com

Dream Catching[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Dream Catching

Disputed Kings and Queens of Narnia[edit]

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

Dark Mountain (logo)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Dark Mountain (logo)

Dark Deco[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Dark Deco

Cut fingering[edit]

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

Clean vocals[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Clean vocals

Chief harbourmaster[edit]

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

Brut up[edit]

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

Template:Independent MPs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Template:Independent MPs

Brain sex[edit]

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

Ace Deuce[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Ace Deuce

Academic School[edit]

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

Borgarthings-Lov[edit]

Appears to be a code of laws presumably associated with the Borgarthings thing. Not mentioned in the article. I expect it would be appropriate to add, but while not present the redirect is confusing. Mentioned briefly at Blót, but I don't think redirecting there is appropriate either, as it's just given as an example in a list. Rusalkii (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barbie: Dreamtopia episodes[edit]

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

Delete![edit]

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

Colonia Ulpia Traiana[edit]

In 2018, Colonia Ulpia Traiana was redirected to Xanten. The page has had some debates in the history, and another user is now indicating that this should not redirect to Xanten, though they haven't created a page, only a 'See also' section to Vetera. Given that they have reverted the redirect, I figured it should come to RfD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JoNeuen: Instead of reverting the redirect, please discuss here why you think the current redirect target is incorrect and where you think the page should redirect to. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed this on the Xanten page. The reason for reverting is that Colonia Ulpia Traiana is an archaeological/historical site, which is only briefly discussed in the Xanten article. JoNeuen (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! So, the link to Vetera was made because I created this article myself. As with Colonia Ulpia Traiana, the Vetera article was redirecting to Xanten before, but I cancelled it because I was working on a translation from the German article. I considered this justified, because I didn't get a response on the Xanten talk page in over a week. Since translating and complementing articles using translation is what I mostly do here, my intention is to do the same with Colonia Ulpia Traiana. The Xanten page is already considered incomplete and these German pages are full of valuable historic and archaeological information that might benefit English speaking Wikipedia. JoNeuen (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about restoring this version? The editor in question was a suspected sock, but the article was neither deleted nor the edits hidden for socking. Jay 💬 17:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly oppose doing that. It wasn't deleted because there was a pre-sock version to revert to. It wasn't revdelled because that's generally not done. We don't reward socking like that. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty thinking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Faulty thinking

Colon Bracket[edit]

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

Mullhausen[edit]

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

Luxury home[edit]

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]

  • Is the "merge", then, a back-door delete? I've seen this done before, deliberately or accidentally. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    • It wasn't a merge; it was redirected as a result of AfD (though I don't actually see any policy-based reasoning in that discussion). --Paul_012 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks for the catch! To clarify, were you referring to the merge of luxury real estate, or luxury home? As this only concerns the "home" titles, there shouldn't be any issue that loses the luxury real estate history, and wouldn't be a backdoor delete of that, unless there was something else that you were referring to. The other title of Luxury Home had a miniscule existence before becoming a "Luxury real estate" redirect, although admittedly I did not catch that in my first go with this nom (I was mainly looking at the lowercase two, and then bundled the uppercase once I realized it existed). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restoration of the previous target - Luxury real estate, may not be an option per the recently concluded DRV. We have so far only one vote suggesting targetting all to Real estate "for now" probably pending the discussion of Luxury real estate, but with that now out of the way, we can re-view this RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation of the saints[edit]

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

No chance in hell[edit]

A theme song mentioned once at the target. Not enough substance to warrant a redirect and not the primary topic. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 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) 14:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raindrops on the Open Road (ROTOR) - EP[edit]

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

SpaceX Mars propellant plant[edit]

PROD'd by user:Ergzay, who states "Destination page no longer contains info regarding this and no page on Wikipedia exists for this. Best to return this to non-existence and let someone create it when it's needed." PROD can only be used on actual articles, so I'm moving this here as a courtesy. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware you couldn't use the template for this purpose. The documentation isn't very clear.
As to the matter at hand, even with the change in the redirect done by @N2e it still doesn't talk anything about a propellant plant. It looks like N2e did a bunch of editing to add some details quickly, but I'm not sure if this was just restoring old content that was previously deleted or not. It might get removed again given that that page has been pared down a ton from what it was because of low quality sourcing. Ergzay (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, propellant plant is mentioned and discussed at target. No other conflicting articles on Wikipedia according to nom, WP:CHEAP. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Interplanetary spaceflight#Propellant plant on a celestial body where the plant is actually discussed. A propellant plant is mentioned at the current target, but only in passing, and in such a manner that one would have to alreay know what it was to get anything useful from it (the kind of place a bluelink would be useful). A7V2 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That target only has a passing mention of "SpaceX propellant plant", although it does go more in depth with propellant plants there. Going to the SpaceX specific article might be preferable for people that include "SpaceX" in the search term, although I don't mind either option. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was my interpretation (perhaps incorrect) that the section, while not written that well, was more or less entirely about the SpaceX plan. The last paragraph at least is entirely about it, not what I'd call a passing mention. A7V2 (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SpaceX need for, and intent to place on Mars, propellant equipment is discussed at the target. There are clearly few details, but the notable SpaceX endeavor to build a Mars-capable large spacecraft is covered in hundreds of sources, and that spacecraft (now flying in a test program), will need the Mars-generated propellant to refill it on Mars making SpaceX discussion of the propellant facility also notable, as also shown by sources at the redirect target. N2e (talk) 10:56, 30 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) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration control in Russia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Immigration control in Russia

Sam Boughton[edit]

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

-)[edit]

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

;-;[edit]

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

')[edit]

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

Burnie board[edit]

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 [47] 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]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Is "burnished" close enough to "Burnie" that we don't have to add an explicit mention of "Burnie" to the target article? feminist🩸 (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom, unless a mention is added to the target. I would support keeping the camelcase redirect if it were an {{R with old history}}, but considering that it was created just a few months ago, then there isn't any valuable history to preserve. CycloneYoris talk! 23:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The advert shown in the external link clearly stylises the product name in camelcase, making it a plausible and useful search term. Therefore either both should be kept or both should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 31 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) 12:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Bajos, Chile[edit]

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

Loule Cross Country[edit]

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

Firestone (Pern)[edit]

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

7.92[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#7.92

Eddie Yongming WU[edit]

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

John B. Clark[edit]

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

Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis[edit]

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

Comazant[edit]

This is supposedly another name for this fire. I could not find any evidence of this externally. Onwiki did not particularly help, as not only is this title not mentioned at the article, it is also not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia! I did a search and almost all my results were for "Comozant"; gave this a look on Wikipedia and got nothing. From there I refined my search to just "Comazant", and the only thing I got for all of the first page of my search engine was Comazant being the publisher of a book titled "Captured" by India Blake. Nothing about the fire. And at the end of the day, with zero mentions on Wikipedia including at the target, this title would not be helpful to readers who are left confused about the relationship between St. Elmo's fire and Comazant, as no connection is established between them. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears to be a misspelling of comozant, which is apparently a D&D monster made of St. Elmo's fire. Implausible search term, and violates WP:LEAST regardless (if I was searching for comozant, I'd probably be wondering if the D&D monster was lifted from real mythology and want info on that... lacking real mythology, I'd probably expect a list of D&D monsters). Fieari (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Latin term used by Galen in De Comate[48], and subsequently in English[49][50][51] ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't this be another reason to delete then, per deletion reason #8? "In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created." This is a Latin word or phrased used in a non-English language historical document. I found no English language sources using the word. Fieari (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fieari, the three latter sources are all explicitly English language sources using the word either directly or with reference to English language speakers ?! ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically:
    • "When seen on shipboard at the extremity of a mast, it is called by the French and Spaniards St Elmo's fire, and by the English sailors a comazant
    • 1749. Waddell, in Phil. Trans., XLVI. 111. A very hard Storm of Wind, attended with Thunder and Lightning … and sundry very large Comazants (as we call them) overhead...
    • 1751. Franklin, Lett., Wks. 1840, V. 224. In Captain Waddell’s account of the effects of lightning on his ship, I could not but take notice of the large comazants (as he calls them), that settled on the spintles at the top-mast heads, and burned like very large torches (before the stroke).
    • 1753. Phil. Trans., XLVIII. 213. We have heard all our lives of St. Helmo’s fire … and of the comazants of our mariners.
    • Helen’s Fire (feu d’Hélène), a comazant called “St. Helme’s” or “St. Elmo’s fire” by the Spaniards; the “fires of St. Peter and St. Nicholas” by the Italians; and “Castor and Pollux” by the ancient Romans.
    ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per WP:RFD#DELETE#8. Very obscure synonym which is unmentioned in the article. According to the OED, it's a variant of corposant, which is a term which is used in the article. If a mention were added we could keep it, but it's obscure enough that I don't think there's a great deal of benefit. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Food Hall[edit]

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

Bitness[edit]

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

Antiscarp[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft redirect to wiktionary

Deplorable[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Deplorable

Disorganized[edit]

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

Family Ties (Fat Joe album[edit]

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

Dune (1984 film and etc.[edit]

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

April 7[edit]

DFTS[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on disambiguating?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:21, 27 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) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dab'ify per above. Fieari (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig, not a well-known abbreviation for "devil facial tumor syndrome" (or whatever it's meant to stand for) and a number of alternative uses as described by Thryduulf. Beefaloe (formerly SpursySituation) (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodynamics of nanostructures[edit]

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]
    Sorry, but yup, you are very wrong. Thermal transport is exactly what it says, how heat via vibrations (phonons) or electrons is transmitted from one place to another, for instance compare copper to an insulator such as glass wool. The topic is relevant as it changes at the nanoscale.
    Thermodynamics is all about what phase you have and how it varies with composition, temperature, pressure, gas environment etc. For instance why you can melt ice by adding salt to it, the solution freezes at a much lower temperature. Thermodynamics at the nanoscale is important, but has nothing to do with heat transfer. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thermal transport is akin to ocean heating or magma flow. Thermodynamics is the (theoretical) study of ergodic systems with a large number of particles and the conservation of energy. It would seem the original article was created with a typo in the title; its pointless to preserve typos. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was moved two weeks back. Internal incoming links need to be fixed first per Synpath. Jay 💬 15:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugin 2023.0.0.d88dc56ded0e built by Thomas[edit]

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

Institute for Macedonian language "Krste Misirkov"[edit]

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

X (far-right website)[edit]

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

Non-binary lesbian[edit]

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

New changes[edit]

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

The Face (TV series)[edit]

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

Dora Romano[edit]

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

Hyundai Ioniq 1[edit]

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

A. A. Abbott[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 14#A. A. Abbott

Greater Power[edit]

Vague redirect not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Refine to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Ranks of divine power A quick Google search reveals this, which reveals through a redirect that this is another term for "Greater deities", a term that DOES appear in our target article. (That said, this is only a weak refine; I could probably be convinced to delete instead fairly easily.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really any mention of it and it's not like Greater Power is a term exclusive to D&D Okmrman (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine per Lunamann, as I have added the term to that section as an explicit reference. BOZ (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My first thought here was religion, but I can't verify what the most common usage is as search results are overwhelmed by adjectival uses for things (e.g. machines) having greater power than something else. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate this frequently refers to God -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate to mention Higher Power (disambiguation), which to me is the most likely target, plus a see-also link to Great power. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate, Greater Power is by no means a term exclusive to D&D and is often used to refer to actual religion-Samoht27 (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The higher power[edit]

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

The greater power[edit]

Vague redirect not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Without explanation this is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate per the Greater Power result, which if dismabiguated, this should point there, if not, then delete -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on disambiguating?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China's under martial law[edit]

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

User talk:PrinceofPunjab/Archive 24[edit]

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

Would you like a Jelly Baby?[edit]

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

Jason Waterfalls[edit]

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

Gana, Iran[edit]

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

The F-Bomb (movie)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#The F-Bomb (movie)

F-Bomb (documentary)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#F-Bomb (documentary)

F-Bomb (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#F-Bomb (film)

The F-Bomb (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#The F-Bomb (film)

F-Bomb (movie)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#F-Bomb (movie)

The "F" Word (film)[edit]

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

Oorum Unavum[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 14#Oorum Unavum

Botad–Ahmedabad line[edit]

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

The American Dodgeball Association of America[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#The American Dodgeball Association of America

April 5[edit]

Mythical Pokémon[edit]

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

Climate: The Movie[edit]

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

Holy Chao[edit]

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

Discorianism[edit]

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

Dischordian[edit]

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

Discodianism[edit]

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

Dischordianism[edit]

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

Discorianist[edit]

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

Wholly Chao[edit]

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

Discordia - Hail the Goddess of Chaos and Confusion[edit]

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

Hail eris[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Hail eris

Discordian - Runcible Nazarene Cabal[edit]

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

Discordian Society[edit]

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

Discordian eschatology[edit]

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

Law of Eristic Escalation[edit]

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

Law of fives[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Law of fives

Discordianisml[edit]

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

Operation Mindyucky[edit]

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

Discordian Date[edit]

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

Pentabarf[edit]

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

Chao (Discordianism)[edit]

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

Afflux[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Afflux

Greyface[edit]

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

Order of Accendo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Order of Accendo

POEE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#POEE

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (video game)[edit]

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

Civilopedia[edit]

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

Stǫklar[edit]

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

Irl A. Gladfelter[edit]

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

Ahoi Tour[edit]

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

Tracy Grandstaff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Tracy Grandstaff

Le Hameau[edit]

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

(Two consecutive apostrophes)[edit]

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

Compatibility (biological)[edit]

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

George W's palace[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#George W's palace

Telegraph wire[edit]

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

Differential algebraic variety[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Differential algebraic variety

Filtered ring[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Filtered ring

Chord (math)[edit]

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

Avanturine glance[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Avanturine glance

Bagiennik[edit]

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

Punctured plane[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Punctured plane

Security & Privacy[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 17:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ukraine missile strike[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#2024 Ukraine missile strike

10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Nominating for deletion. The redirect is overly specific and too long and is therefore an unlikely search term. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the discussion closed a year ago last week. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per Thryduulf and WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close I didn't realise that their had already been a previous discussion on this redirect, I was kind of tired when I nominated it and forgot to check. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere in the article, but most importantly, not mentioned ANYWHERE on the Internet. If this was a news headline that could be hypothetically copied in, that'd be understandable(??) but still incredibly unlikely to be naturally searched. This is just, bits and pieces of the articles opening sentence and lead, but as a redirect. Restating the prose of the article, but as a redirect, makes these specific 14 words a novel and obscure synonym for the subject, (evidenced from no user on the Internet has said this ever with zero results outside of Wikipedia). It can't even be a synonym, it's a synopsis. It's unsearchable as a string of words that exists nowhere else, and a year later has STILL never been stated anywhere else on the Internet. The alternative redirect being: 10-year-old (the rest of the title) "from Ohio to Indiana" already exists and is the stylization that seemingly headlined in reports. I don't really like that redirect either, but at least the title benefits from existing, and can be copied into the search bar and/or can appear first when users start typing this in, if they happen to start their search with "ten-dash-year-dash-old" exactly. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects are not the way to promote very tenuous news reporting. See the NPR reporting in some detail on (probably?) this case, [52]. Essentially, we will most likely never get the facts straight (whatever the truth is, due to privacy concerns), so there is nothing of notability here for the article. Redirecting a headline of a single-source new story with no corroboration to our article where for this very reason the story cannot be published does not seem to be useful for anyone. --Викидим (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Okmrman (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a plausible search term, largely due to its length. Shocking to me that this was apparently discussed before and it didn't lead to a delete then... Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is a variation of 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion which I brought up at the previous RfD and suggested bundling. Either both would have been deleted, or neither, and there was support for keeping the latter as an actual headline, the reason I didn't vote the last time, and also because I probably expected the previous RfD to go for a second relist. Jay 💬 08:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - whilst is is very long and specific, it is likely that someone could look it up. Also WP:CHEAP. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects may be cheap, but that doesn't mean we have to keep absurdly implausible ones like this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Nor does that mean that we need to delete them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a novel and very obscure synonym for the subject, deleteable per WP:RDEL #8. The title is WP:SYNTH taken from pieces of the article's synopsis and extended in an unnatural fashion that is more of a Google-search random-selection of details and explanations, also appears nowhere on the entire Internet. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps not especially plausible but harmless and takes people where they clearly intend to go. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-monarchism[edit]

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

Tantras[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Tantras

Demi (Phantasy Star IV)[edit]

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

Palojärv[edit]

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

Dependence liability[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Dependence liability

"Tiara" (Poem)[edit]

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

Template:R from subtitle[edit]

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 subtitle}} can plausibly refer to both a title-subtitle combination and a subtitle on its own, I propose that it is deleted. (I noticed that there was talk-page discussion on the possibility of this becoming an rcat of its own - however, if desired, something similar could still be achieved with [e.g.] {{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 subtitle}} have that rcat replaced 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 template:R from title and subtitle (categorised under {{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. P.I. Ellsworth , 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. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually just fell for this one now. The name is definitely ambiguous; I interpreted it as categorising redirects that are solely made up of a subtitle, which I see now is incorrect. Loytra (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I vote to move and deprecate, per Thryduulf. Loytra (talk) 14:25, 13 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) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move and deprecate per Thryduulf. Rcat templates or redirects for both full titles and subtitles alone should be created at unambiguous titles. Nickps (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and deprecate per Thryduulf Okmrman (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. I am not convinced with the current arguments and echo WP:Redirects are cheap. If the technicalities and intent of the redirect are in question, that should be taken to the redirect or target template's talk to determine a consensus, not using an RfD to do so. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be missing something (please tell me if I am), but I don’t see how this could be resolved by a discussion either at Template talk:R from more specific name or Template talk:R from subtitle? From my perspective, the issue is with the ambiguity of the title of the redirect itself - the fact that ‘subtitle’ evidently could (and has) been used to refer to both a subtitle on its own, and a title-subtitle combination. Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see how any change to {{R from more specific name}}, or any retargeting of {{R from subtitle}}, could fix the fundamental issue with the ambiguity of the name of the redirect itself - hence why I brought it to RfD. In my view, this is one of the circumstances in which redirects are not cheap - imo, WP:R#D2 applies, as the present title is clearly a cause of some confusion. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect of this discussion. My apologies, I probably should have done this earlier on rather than two relists in. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the name of this RCAT template is confusing. My first thought was that it was intended for precisely the exceptional cases identified by A smart kitten. I would not have guessed from the template name that it is actually for the redirects from the form "Title: subtitle" to "Title". I support suggestion by Thryduulf to deprecate this. older ≠ wiser 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, deprecate, create new cat: we need an Rcat for "R from subtitle alone", as well as this one for "R from title plus subtitle", and the existing Rcat should lead the editor to a page clarifyng the difference. PamD 16:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verticon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Verticon

Chewing treats[edit]

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

American Comparative Literature Association[edit]

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

Miracle mice[edit]

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

Offensives[edit]

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

The Adventures of Sajo and her Beaver People[edit]

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

Bharat Rs[edit]

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

Farming sim[edit]

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

Yggdrasil (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

E2023[edit]

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

E2019[edit]

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

Psychological addiction[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Psychological addiction

2023 Islamabad local government elections[edit]

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

Draft:Windows 8.4[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete by El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (non-admin closure).
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFD