The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. As unambiguous, useful per WP:R#K3 to a community of people, popular outside the scanlation website, and an exception to the prior nHentai IDs that were deleted. These render the Reliable Sources point moot. Jay (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 177013 → Metamorphosis (manga)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Draft:177013 → Metamorphosis (manga)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 13#94415 and other hentai serial (?) numbers, where there was a consensus that numbers from this one Hentai scanlation website are not appropriate redirects. Link20XX (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was the one that brought 177013 up, I originally thought that it had some merit (albeit questionable) because 177013 is a somewhat known internet meme. However that RFD seems to have brought a precedent that these numbers aren't appropiate redirects, so delete. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 15:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep while these numbers indeed are not usually appropriate redirects, 177013 is very prominently used to refer to this manga (just Google it). Deleting this would significantly impede navigation for readers who might search this number on Wikipedia, this gets ~100 pageviews a month so this would actually affect some people. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elli: If this number is so important to the series, I imagine it would be covered in RS in some way, yet I have yet to find any use of this number outside of what fans use, and if we had a redirect for everything fans called something we would have hundreds. Additionally, if nHentai is so important to this series, why is it not covered in RS and mentioned in the article? Link20XX (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as creator. I didn’t know consensus are against these number, but even knowing now, I am inclined to agree with Elli above. Among its community, the work is primarily known by the nHentai ID. The target used to contain the ID in text, but it was removed for lacking RS - so removing the redirect would make the article unfindable on WP by its frankly commonname. Going against established consensus feels a bit strange, but I weakly feel this is an exception due to the titles’ close association. Gaioa (T C L) 17:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google makes it clear that this is a very plausible search term for this topic, and not a likely search term for anything else. It is irrelevant whether RS use it, what matters is whether people will use it to find our content and the evidence shows that in this case (unlike the others) they almost certainly will. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasoning above. Sandtalon (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while this is a classic meme, I don't think it is non-trivial enough to warrant inclusion to the wiki. Anyways, I've performed a Google News and Google Books search with this search term and emergence/metamorphosis and only got articles with questionable reliability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So, in 2018 I and a friend were sitting at a restaurant in D.C. and saw someone wearing a shirt that said "177013". I asked my friend if she knew what that meant, and when she said no, I Googled the term, arriving not long after at our article Metamorphosis (manga). I was using Google there rather than our internal search, yes, but I might just have well been using the latter; I often do, even for things where most people would use Google. As such, this satisfies WP:R#K3, mentioned or not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is the source of all these numbers to manga notable? E-Hentai has an article, so presumably, these websites/this sort of website, have the possibility of being notable. But nhentai (the source of this number) does not have an article. These numbers (besides the topic of this RfD) seem to show up on social media (without mentioning the website where the number is used), so it is in the popular culture milieu. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elli, Gaioa, and Thryduulf. Huggums537 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chukker shirt → Polo shirt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect not verified in wide use as a synonym. Ibadibam (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but spell it correctly, "Chukka". -Roxy the dog. wooF 12:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this redirect, but create Chukka shirt per Roxy. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 21:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible misspelling of Chukka shirt, which this should me marked as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some explanation of this term is added to the target article, at present it isn't mentioned at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a synonym, I've added a mention. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: could you add a source as well? Ibadibam (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added a Citation needed as there was no reply. Jay (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added the rcats to the redirect to have if it is kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an a-dee-a' fo' as long as its mentioned at the ta'get a'ticle. In ce'-tain accents (like the one many people have whe' I grew up), o' fo' people with ce'-tain speech impediments (like the one I had as a kid and slip back into sometimes when I'm ti-'ud), these two wo'ds a' pronounced the same. I could definitely pictu' hearing "Chukka shi't" from a Bostonian and assuming the' we' dropped a's in the fi'st wo'd as in the second. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are unbelievably many words which have ambiguous phonetics due to different accents. For example, a Bri'ish reader would pronounce "Bark" as "Bak". But Bak does not redirect to, nor does it mention, Bark. If we did that, British readers might believe that we have phonetic redirects for all articles, which simply isn't true. Similarly, a Bostonian finding Chukker shirt might falsely believe that we have other similar redirects such as Havad Yad. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 23:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yes, the old "we need to delete this redirect; lest a reader who is helped by it then thinks they might be helped by a similar redirect". Besides the fact that the number of readers who feel spurred by one redirect to search Wikipedia in a colloquial accent is incredibly minimal. Besides the fact that the point of the redirect is to facilitate readers who haven't heard of the term and make a plausible guess at its spelling; not for people searching up terms in their own accent (why would they do that in droves?). — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would oppose the creation of redirects for every conceivable dropped-r situation. A somewhat obscure colloquial term ending in an /ə/, however, is legitimately ambiguous if spoken by millions of people. (Meanwhile "Is that you' dog that's bahking?" is clear to the listener even if they're unfamiliar with the accent in question.) I'd probably support Hahvahd as a well-known joke spelling, but in general the defining question is whether readers are likely to encounter a word in a context where they can't infer spelling from pronunciation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a plausible misspelling. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have added a mention at the target. Jay (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per other keeps. Huggums537 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chula-Siam Monorail → Rail transport in Bangkok  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chula–Siam Monorail → Rail transport in Bangkok  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target does not have anything about the this redirect's subject, which used to be a separate page before someone decided to redirect it in 2016 without seeing if the target has content for this subject or not. NotCory (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The target article used to contain the following paragraph, which has since been removed.

  In addition to rapid transit and heavy rail lines, there have been proposals for several monorail systems, the most notable being a line linking Chulalongkorn University with Siam Square, to be funded by the BMA. In 2010 Grand Canal Land Company proposed a 600–800 metre line linking its properties on Rama IX Road with the Phra Ram 9 MRT Station, but failed to secure approval.

  --Paul_012 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• PS Maybe Grand Square Monorail should also be nominated (though it's an R from merge and will need some attribution notices). I've added Chula–Siam Monorail to the nomination. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject:Wikipedia → Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• WikiProject New York (state) → Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 19#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I merged these two nominations with the exact same rationale, since I don't really see why they should be discussed separately. Regards, SONIC678 05:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the referenced discussion is actually at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type (it was relisted several times). Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. We should only maintain mainspace→projectspace XNRs for terms that non-editors and brand-new editors are likely to search for, like Your first article. Everyone else can be assumed to know how to type a namespace prefix, and there is a longstanding moratorium on new pseudo-namespaces (beyond MOS:, CAT:, and rarely T:... probably one I'm forgetting). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom & Tamzin.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Vincennite → Hydrogen cyanide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely a mineral name. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:594A:1C88:144B:4D8A (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WP:REDLINK. This seems to be a WWI cyanide and phosgene based weapon. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless mentioned at target. Appears to be a chemical weapon that is mixture of chemicals, of which hydrogen cyanide is just one. Searchers will not find any useful information at the current target currently, and without mention this redirect is misleading. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bleiby process → Hydrogen cyanide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unsourced term for the chemical process. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:594A:1C88:144B:4D8A (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget to George Thomas Beilby where this process is discussed. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as arguably implausible misspelling of the correct Beilby process which as of this comment does not exist. The process is described at both targets (though uncited), but I think there is slightly more scientific detail at the hydrogen cyanide article, if someone wanted to create the correct redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete good catch on the misspelling. I'm okay with the creation of the proper redirect. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Acrolein#Military uses. Basically just refined the current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible redirect. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:594A:1C88:144B:4D8A (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and refine target to Acrolein#Military_uses I've made a cited mention on how this chemical was used in World War I under the name Papite. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and target section per Lenticel. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Numeric symbology → Numeral system  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term neither explained nor mentioned in target article. Hildeoc (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Numerology, although I would not oppose to delete. D.Lazard (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Gus (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I doubt that this capitalisation can plausibly refer to the given name. Retarget to Gus (disambiguation). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to be redirect from move per page log (although it is a bit confusing), but if so, should be kept unless there is a strong reason to delete per WP:RFD#KEEP 4. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 17:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. The acronym is more likely to refer to items on the disambiguation page than people with the name. - Eureka Lott 18:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to dab per nom. Dab page lists GUS plc and GUS reporter system. Paradoctor (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gus (disambiguation) per nom. Just don't target easily to the set index page for the given names. It's too ambiguous! 2405:9800:BA31:F6:594A:1C88:144B:4D8A (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gus (disambiguation) - per OP. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 08:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gus (disambiguation) It's the correct way of writing at least three things on the disambiguation page, and is not a correct way of writing its current target. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Mall of Tripla. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tripla → DPT vaccine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from the trade name of a vaccine to the vaccine itself. Not mentioned in the target article, and I couldn't find it on the resource listed as a reference either. No incoming links. Retarget to Mall of Tripla, which is actually called "Tripla" in common parlance. JIP | Talk 14:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as both an {{r from nickname}} (I'll take the nom's word for it) and an {{r to subtopic}} per the statement Mall of Tripla is part of the larger Tripla complex, with hatnote to current target. If the term is ever mentioned at the current topic, a 2-item DAB might be preferable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to SWF#Related file formats and extensions. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Flash templates → Adobe Flash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of this anywhere on Wikipedia. Before being redirected, this was an unsourced stub, though I doubt its contents were used anywhere. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to SWF#Related_file_formats_and_extensions where the template file extension .swt is discussed. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Lenticel. There's not much there, but there's something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The current redirect isn't appropriate, and there doesn't seem to be a better target at the moment. There should be an article with this title, once someone gets around to writing it. Also deleting Basic Words, Basic words, and Universal vocabulary under the same logic. Aervanath (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Core vocabulary → Swadesh list  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The linguistic concept of core vocabulary is bigger than the Swadesh list where the redirect leads. A core vocabulary is a broad concept in linguistics which is indepedent from the Swadesh list, see [1], [2], [3], [4].
There exists other lists of core vocabulary, such as the General Service List and the New General Service List. The concept of core vocabulary applied to French can be found at Français fondamental.
Lastly, the expression "core vocabulary" is nowhere to be found at Swadesh list.
I did not find the explanation of the concept of core vocabulary on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think the redirect should be deleted, as no retarget is possible. Veverve (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig or write a broad-concept article. I agree that the term is broader than the current articles we have, but disambiguation or a (better yet) a broad concept article would server readers better than search results, especially as almost none of the targets noted by the nom appear on the first page. If this is not deleted, Basic vocabulary should lead to either this title or wherever this title redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• dabify/setindexify or write a broad concept article, per Thryduulf -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I relisted per a request on my talk page. Via diffs, you can see my initial closure and the resulting rough disambiguation page. I've self-reverted on both. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict with close) Retarget or delete. I do not think a disambiguation or set index is appropriate here because none of those lists would be referred to simply as "core vocabulary". If it is desired to redirect to these lists, a better option would be to retarget to Vocabulary#Word lists. However, that seems a bit too narrow for my liking and think taking it up a level to Vocabulary#Vocabulary size makes better sense. That being said, I do emphasize with the nominator's observation that a general explanation of "core vocabulary" is not explicitly explained anywhere that I can find on Wikipedia, so from that standpoint I am amenable with deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I oppose retargetting to either of those places. Vocabulary size is only tangentially relevant at best, and while Word lists is sort of related it's both broader and narrower than "core vocabulary" and so inferior to the drafted set index (which could have been expanded a bit). Deletion would be inferior to all the options though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? The drafted set index is vastly inferior to Vocabulary#Word lists. It started out with a falsehood that Core vocaublary "can refer to" these things. No, it cannot! These are examples of core vocabulary lists, not things that share the same name. Vocabulary#Word lists provides the foundation for what that set index was going for, that is providing core vocabulary word lists, with the additional benefit of providing context why such a list is beneficial. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The draft needed some work, so what? Vocabulary#Word lists provides a foundation, but only for a concept that is only tangentially related to the topic of core vocabulary - some core vocabularies are based on word lists but not all are (others are based on concepts or a combination), some word lists deal with core vocabulary but many don't. A broad concept article would be better than a set index, but a set index provides a much better basis to write one than does either of the sections you suggest because they are focused on different things and don't provide any context to the concept being searched for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument is that core vocabulary is tangentially related to word lists, so your position advocating for the creation of a page that lists these word lists makes even less sense to me. That's much better an argument for deleting per WP:REDLINK—unless you can put together an article (I don't think it would be a "broad-concept" article per se) that is able to address and explain all that. Personally, I don't think the difference is as wide as you are making it out to be. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• write a broad concept article or list article. per Thryduulf. Sharouser (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of Tavix's proposal and the heated discussion that immediately followed...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This can be a SIP SIA or broad-concept article per Sharouser, but for now Delete as ambiguous. The DAB draft by BDD will not fly per Tavix. Jay (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until someone writes content about the actual concept. Retargeting to Vocabulary is also possible (as readers interested in the topic will be able to extract some relevant conclusions from there). – Uanfala (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have discovered Basic Words, Basic words and Universal vocabulary also redirect to Swadesh list. My arguments and position are the same as for Core vocabulary. Veverve (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Formaldehyde#Safety. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a useful redirect. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:594A:1C88:144B:4D8A (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My first thought was that why would this not be a useful redirect, given that this is a likely search term and in the absence of specific article the content would be at the target. However, while Formaldehyde#Safety exists it doesn't mention the word "poison" anywhere. I'll alert WT:MED to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because the article doesn't (currently) contain the exact word poison?

  I wonder whether the nom was hoping to be able to learn more about acute formaldehyde intoxication, rather than wishing people searching for that term weren't sent to the most relevant article, which contains relevant information, even though the relevant information is not labeled with the exact words of the redirect. (All that stuff about eye irritation and headaches is "formaldehyde poisoning". The stuff about cancer and chronic exposure is not.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As a non-specialist I didn't know whether either "All that stuff about eye irritation and headaches" and/or "The stuff about cancer and chronic exposure" is or is not poisoning. If I search for "Formaldehyde poisoning" and am taken a broader article, the first thing I'm going to do is look for a section called "poison"/"poisoning" or something similar, if there isn't one then I'm going to search on the page for "poison" so I'm taken to the part I want to read. The "Safety" section contains a lot of information some of it is clearly not about poisoning but I have no idea about the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to Formaldehyde#Safety now that section has been improved. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Formaldehyde#Safety. While this section could certainly discuss poisoning more explicitly, this is currently the best target for this very plausible search term, and none of other search results would likely give users any useful information. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Formaldehyde#Safety. I made a poisoning entry there using an existing CDC cite. Pinging Mdewman6 Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Formaldehyde#Safety--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SR Haddon → Contact (1997 American film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• SR Hadden → Contact (1997 American film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete the re-direct pages of SR Haddon and SR Hadden. Both redirects are trivial and unhelpful. This is a minor character in the movie it redirects to, and no other characters have a redirect to this page. 47.35.146.105 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I merged these two discussions with the exact same rationale. I'm not sure why they need to be discussed separately, so hopefully that helps. Regards, SONIC678 01:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The only person listed at Haddon (surname)#S is Sam E. Haddon, obviously not a plausible target. There are two people at the Hadden disambiguation page with first names starting S, Sid Hadden and Susan Hadden, the latter's article gives her middle initial as "G", while the former does not give an initial. Very little is known it seems about Sid Hadden, but based on biographies of other cricketers from the era, if he was commonly known as "SR Hadden" (e.g. on scorecards) this would be in the article. So these articles are not plausible search terms either. Not listed on the dab page was Sally Hadden (I'll correct this next), her article does not give an initials but her profile on the university website links to her CV, which is headed "Sally E. Hadden", another non-match. I found no other S Haddon or S Hadden people with articles. Searching google found only the current target and SR Haddon Industries, a non-notable distributor of medical cannabis in British Columbia. I don't have an opinion about the current target yet, but there are no alternatives I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although there is a lot of information about the character online, there is non in the article so the redirect is confusing. If this is not deleted, the hatnote removed in this edit should be restored. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Typically I'd be inclined to view this sort of redirect as harmless, but this particular one is ambiguous. The character appears in both the book and the movie, and creating a disambiguation page for a minor character would be frivolous. - Eureka Lott 04:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.