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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are some foreign-language variations mentioned in the target article, but this isn't one of them. Delete per WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are several links from the article to e.g. Prince étranger and Fils de France, effectively French princes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 13 May 2022 (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 23:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See full list of museums → Lists of museums  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, awkward and implausible redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this gives the impression that there's another list called "Full list of museums," which we don't have, not even as a redirect to the target article. This redirect could be problematic for that reason by potentially throwing off readers. Regards, SONIC678 21:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I completely concur with the above arguments. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2022 (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 23:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Assent of faith → Dogma in the Catholic Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Assent of Faith → Dogma in the Catholic Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Full assent of faith → Dogma in the Catholic Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article Assent of faith was AfDed in 2021 and turned into a redirect (no merge). However, there is no mention of 'assent of faith' in the article.

Obsequium religiosum is radically not the same concept and is not a Latin translation (that would be 'obsequium fidei'); and no 'assent of faith' is defined or explained there. See also this CWR article. See also this The jurist article which states: "In Vatican II's teaching on obsequium found in Lumen gentium, some confusion exists because obsequium is not utilized as a univocal term: obsequium fidei refers to the assent of faith to be given to the infallible definitions of an ecumenical council; obsequium religiosum describes the appropriate response due to the noninfallible teaching of the pope or one's own bishop".

Besides, the expression 'assent of faith' is a bit vague. Furthermore, I found no good target.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Such wordings seem to be used in the general sense a lot of ways in terms of Christianity as a whole. Seems best to just let people use the search engine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hip- hop → Rapping  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Badly punctuated and incorrectly targeted (vice hip hop) it's probably better that this is deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Columbia Airport (New York) → Green Acres Mall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is nothing at the article about the airport and the only connection is that the airport was at the same place the mall is now. The airport itself is likely notable and when the redirect was created it was created with the summary "Redirecting until a proper page can be created for this historical airport". This was brought to my attention by Bdushaw at Talk:Green Acres Mall#Weird redirect. In summary, delete per WP:REDYES. TartarTorte 18:36, 13 May 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second-level domain not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:19, 13 May 2022 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2002 film → 2002 in film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Similarly to #2012 film below, this should be disambiguated with 2002 (film), either with a disambig page or with a hatnote. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As overly vague, search engine is better off doing the heavy lifting here. A disambiguation in this case seems unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Retarget to 2002 (film) (which I think is what the searcher is most likely to want) and use a hatnote to 2002 in film. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 2002 (film) is not well known, and shouldn't be allowed to hijack an existing title, which seems to be the only reason for this discussion as there is no pattern of redirects "film" to "(film)" and the nominator has not created any similar redirects recently. It's a valid modification of the current target, consistent with others, and a hatnote is enough for disambiguation. There's no guarantee that search results will continue to be useful, as films are usually disambiguated by year. A865 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:43, 13 May 2022 (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 no consensus / retarget. No consensus for 2012 film, but retarget 1922 film to 1922 (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2012 film → 2012 (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1922 film → 1922 (2017 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Disambiguating similarly to 1906 film seems more appropriate. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As overly vague, search engine is better off doing the heavy lifting here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and use a hatnote. Keep 2012 film because I think the specific film is what searchers would be looking for, but have a hatnote to 2012 in film. Retarget 1922 film to 1922 (disambiguation) because there are 2 specific films and that's where 1922 (film) targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab, delete, hatnote – I don't mind. But do note 1922 (1978 film). — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shhhnotsoloud, you said Keep both here and for 2002 film below, but the status quos are different- do you think the primary topic for redirects with this format are specific films, or the year in film articles? Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I'm grateful for your picking that up. I think the specific film is primary so I've amended my opinion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the year articles, consistent with others; there is no pattern of "film" to "(film)" redirects. 1922 is a hijacked redirect, obvious recentism; the 2012 redirect was created before there was an article for 2012 in film. A hatnote is enough for disambiguation, similar to 2001, which is probably a more notable film (although not the full title). There's no guarantee that search results will continue to be useful, as films are usually disambiguated by year. 1906 film should be redirected to 1906 in film; as well as being non-standard disambiguation, no film currently exists, and if one is made, it could have a different title. A865 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:42, 13 May 2022 (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 Patch (computing). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Software Update → List of macOS components#Software Update  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Many other things also have software updates Qwv (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Patch (computing) to match Software update. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as is; the capitalization suggests that the target should be something other than the ordinary meaning of Software update, and List of macOS components#Software Update is in fact one of those topics. I think it's probably the only topic for which this exact search term is appropriate, or at least the primary topic (though I might be a bit biased because I'm a MacOS user). A quick onwiki search I did for the phrase "Software Update" (this makes me wish Special:Search and Ctrl-F were case-sensitive!) and ignoring the wrongly-lowercased results finds the phrase unexplained in Samsung Galaxy S II WiMAX (miscapitalized?) the similarly-named Software Update Services (a Windows thing, apparently), and several mysterious mentions in assorted refs. Duckmather (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to patch (computing). For what it's worth, the counterpart in iOS is also called "Software Update", so even taking the capitalization into account it is ambiguous. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:37, 13 May 2022 (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 Hammer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chisel peen hammer → Ball-peen hammer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Chisel-peen hammer → Ball-peen hammer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Point peen hammer → Ball-peen hammer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Point-peen hammer → Ball-peen hammer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Cross-peen hammer → Ball-peen hammer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect pages for the cross, point, and chisel peen hammers should point to the page for hammers instead of ball peen hammers as they are not the same thing. Frobird (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added other redirects which were intended to be nominated (apparently as stated by the nom) but were not included in the previous nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I haven't done this before and didn't know how to format it exactly. The first paragraph of the ball-peen hammer page does even say they are different tools. Frobird (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2022 (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 10:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chrisophibia → Persecution of Christians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as unlikely misspelling of Christophobia. No usage found in reliable sources. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I concur. This doesn't appear helpful at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2022 (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.