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. One example of caps it seems in the links. The redirect is whatever. Not worth discussing any longer though. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Drew Curtis' FARK.com → Fark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An implausible, unmentioned synonym for the subject. Very unlikely to be searched instead of Drew Curtis (from link) or Fark or Fark.com Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep exists enough on the Internet to be a useful redirect; current page title for fark is "Drew Curtis' FARK.com"; and, for example, the Telegraph used it: "When you go to the front page it's not just Fark.com, it's Drew Curtis's Fark.com.".[1] Even made it to print media [2] [3] [4]. Lack of mention is fine here since there's no possibility of confusion and readers will quickly learn they arrived at the correct place, from the lead of our article "Fark is a community website created by Drew Curtis ...." Skynxnex (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the sources found by Skynxnex. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's just a sentence though, i.e. something belongs to someone else, not a redirect worthy alternate name. None of those sources uses capitals for "FARK.com" anyway. FARK.com doesn't exist. These don't change the fact that the term is convolutional, unlikely, and unofficial (as those sources haven't demonstrated it being a noteworthy name other than the start of a sentence for what we know: that Fark.com is a website owned by Drew Curtis). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Actions Prior to Grant's Landing → Vicksburg campaign  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Baffle Of Chancellorsville → Battle of Chancellorsville  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ace Deuce → Ann Arbor, Michigan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

High and a winner got a hot hand, got a hot hand, hot hand
Didn't actually have anything else to say, just wish I saw this sooner :} Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 23:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• GWGFJ → George Washington Gale Ferris Jr.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 21:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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) Toadette^Edit! 17:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

• Wiktionary redirect to wikt:awoo. The meme is not defined at the current target with any number of trailing 'o's. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  on that topic, shouldn't "awoo" be dabified? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cogsan: That seems like a solution to the entire matter. Disambiguate Awoo and point the nominated title there. BD2412 T 19:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is literally an onomatopoeia for howling. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To someone familiar with the meme it is. Someone just finding the word in an article for the first time (especially someone whose first language isn't English) would find it surprising to have it link to another page that doesn't explain what it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Being unfamiliar with a meme doesn't make it *not* an onomatopoea?? An onomatopoea is a transliteration of a non-language sound into a language, like "bark", "meow", "bang", or "splash". Just... say "awoo" out loud, and then listen to these dogs howling, and compare.

  Also, for the record, I'm not familiar enough with touhou for my first thought when I see "awoo" to be Momiji Inubashiri as per cogsan; I'm instead part of the furry fandom, where this is just... attached to any old dog/wolf, as per the Wiktionary article 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have no idea what meme people are talking about and I can immediately understand that this is the onomatopoeia for howling. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 23:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The American Dodgeball Association of America → Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• American Dodgeball Association of America → Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Also bundle American Dodgeball Association of America to this. The target mentions ADAA though, and this was clarified in the pre-BLAR content. It shouldn't be hard to expand the acronym. Jay 💬 04:14, 14 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]

I have removed one mention of ADAA though. Jay 💬 16:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 16:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ottoman Bessarabia → Budjak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inaccurate redirect. The Ottoman Empire annexed both Budjak (south of Bessarabia) and northern parts centered around Khotyn [5] [6]. 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]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aron (Pokemon character) → List of generation III Pokémon#Aron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Aron (Pokémon character) → List of generation III Pokémon#Aron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Golem (Pokemon character) → List of generation I Pokémon#Golem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Golem (Pokémon character) → List of generation I Pokémon#Golem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

  I still believe these are valid and potentially useful redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 22 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]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 Tantra (disambiguation). There's enough confusion here over what the correct meaning/target of the plural form of Tantra is that the only reasonable close appears to be to retarget it to this dab page suggested by QoH. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

• Convert to disambiguation as per @Redtigerxyz (if I understood them correctly). Tantra is about tantric traditions. Tantras (Buddhism) is about Buddhist tantric texts. Tantras (Hinduism) is about Hindu tantric texts. Therefore, Tantras should be a dab between Tantras (Buddhism) and Tantras (Hinduism), probably also with a note about Tantra as well. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify - Per above, their arguments are convincing that the plural matters and a search for Tantra or Tantras means something different. Fieari (talk) 01:09, 25 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]

• This shouldn't've been relisted a fourth time, but retarget to Tantra (disambiguation), where the two Tantras are mentioned. No need for a separate dab. Queen of ♡ | speak 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 — no quorum. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dependence liability → Substance dependence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

@Mugtheboss: What exact target are you referring to then? Hildeoc (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: Substance dependence#Dependence potential. — Mugtheboss (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a generic term that may as well apply to Marriage penalty, Cohabitation#Financial effects, Shared earning/shared parenting marriage, Income splitting, etc. Jay 💬 07:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you google the term, only medical results show up, including multiple studies with the term in the name, such as "Use of drugs with dependence liability", "Dependence liability of the benzodiazepines", "Dependence-Producing Liability of LSD and Similar Psychotomimetics", etc… etc…

  It's clear that this term is established in medicine, not marriage law. — Mugtheboss (talk) 09:53, 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]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2024 Ukraine missile strike → 22 March 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Retarget to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#March 2024 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present), March isn't mentioned in this one. Rusalkii (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a nonsensical redirect. Even if we were to target it to some timeline, there are no good options, as any timeline (at least how they are currently structured) necessarily does not include all of 2024, and "2024 Ukraine missile strike" certainly could refer to any time period in 2024, not just one part of the timeline. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present) per Rusalkii. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article was under this incorrect title for one hour. We don't have articles or lists on missile strikes in Ukraine categorized by year. Jay 💬 14:14, 3 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 21:11, 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]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).