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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Narrowing → Semantic change#Types of semantic change  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are a lot of possible things people could have in mind when they search the word "narrowing," and not all of them have to do with CS. Could this be a dab page instead? Mover of molehills^{move me} 23:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Narrowing (computer science) is the only thing I'm seeing that isn't a partial title match, but without reading the article (where they types of semantic change, including narrowing, are not really explained) I'd have said that about semantic narrowing too. Wiktionary indicates "narrowing" is the name for part of a stocking, but there is no use of the word at stocking. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, a disambiguation page would make sense. —Ruakh_TALK 16:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per the aboves -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a firmer consensus on disambiguating.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. I have drafted a dab below the redirect, however, there are some issues. I have tried to pull out the major partial title matches that can be referred to as simply "narrowing" (making them valid entries for a dab page) and created some redirects using parenthetical disambiguation, while others have natural disambiguation. The existing such redirect, Narrowing (computer science), targets a section at Unification (computer science), but there is also Narrowing of algebraic value sets which is either the same or a closely related topic, and at least makes "(computer science)" incomplete disambiguation. Someone with some expertise needs to determine how to reconcile these two. Besides the descriptions needing some improvement, it's also likely additional entries should be added, but I think the draft dab is a significant improvement over the status quo, since the current target is clearly not the primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also the redirect Q-based narrowing resulting from a WP:BLAR that targets the stub Q-principle, potentially making the Narrowing (linguistics) redirect I just created {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, but I'm not sure how to disentangle them, as both involve semantics and linguistics but are distinct topics. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. That drafted dab might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than the status quo and much more helpful than search results. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate using the draft. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:11, 16 September 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Castell carreg cennin → Carreg Cennen Castle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspelling, too old for CSD. I've created a redirect from the correct Welsh name as a replacement. Jr8825 • Talk 21:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Jr8825: having the actual Welsh name as a redirect is helpful as people may be searching for it, but a version with typo less so. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is not a common misspelling (even most of the hits for this exact phrase turn out to actually be the correct "Cennen"). Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The misspelling is perfectly plausible and probably quite common. Cennin in Welsh is a leek, whereas Cennen is just the name of a small river close to the castle and not an actual word in modern Welsh. The mistake would be a natural one. Examples of this mislabeling include [1]. A more modern example: [2]. As long as we allow redirects from plausible mis-spellings, this one is fine - but clearly the redirect from the correct Welsh name is better, so thanks for adding that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just going to add to my reasoning to say that (1) presumably the creator of the redirect was an example of this common mis-spelling and (2) that numbers here will be necessarily small but also consistent. The reason is that the most likely demographic for making this error would be people living in Wales, who have some Welsh (all children learn Welsh in school) but not necessarily fluent (so reading Wikipedia in English - but fluent speakers also frequent English Wikipedia because the articles tend to be fuller). My feeling is it is largely, although not entirely, Welsh children doing school projects who are most likely to type the above. That population is small compared to all readers, but also an important demographic for the article. However Google will probably sort them out, so my keep !vote is predicated on the principle we allow plausible mis-spellings. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Sirfurboy's rationale. Cennen being a relatively unknown word in Welsh compared to Cennin makes this plausible. TartarTorte 16:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sirfurboy's proof of the typo's prominent use. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:07, 16 September 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 keep and added hatnote to VV at the current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Double V → Double V campaign  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Double v → Double V campaign  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

[Retarget to W because] That is more common. Some languages call it "Double V" (translated to English), and a few of them call "Double U". 176.88.83.60 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination fixed and redirects tagged by Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Double V was created as a redirect to Armada Music#Signed artists in 2016, and was retargetted to Double V campaign by JalenFolf in 2020. Double v was created as a redirect to W in 2008, nominated for deletion (initially prodded) a couple of weeks later but consensus was to keep. I remained pointing at W until 2016 when it was retargetted to Double V campaign by Mitchumch. The campaign article was created in 2014 and so not discussed at the last RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and hatnote. The WWII campaign is slightly more prominent in google search results than the letter, but whatever target is chosen needs a hatnote to the other and, possibly, VV (a disambiguation page). Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to VV, and add Double V campaign to that page. BD2412 T 21:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming you meant add Double V campaign to the dab page, then I'm equally happy with that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Amended to "add". BD2412 T 22:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate to the campaign, the artist, "w" and "vv" -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artist no longer appears in the Armada Music article at all. BD2412 T 17:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It'll still be a 3dab after removing the artist -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • All three can already be found at VV. BD2412 T 20:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with hatnote to VV and possibly W, as nothing else at VV would likely be called "Double V". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and resolve ambiguity with hatnote to VV. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:18, 16 September 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 List of British dark comedies. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/British Dark Comedy → Category:British black comedy television shows  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this is helpful: Articles for creation/British Dark Comedy is red. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Before draftspace existed, draft articles by those unable to created pages in the article namespace were created as subpages of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation and then moved to mainspace. We generally keep these redirects per WP:RDRAFT, but in this case the article British dark comedy was moved to List of British dark comedies and that was then redirected to the category. I've recommended above that the list article be restored, if it is then this should be retargetted back to it. If the list is not restored then this should be kept or deleted the same as the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, any use this would have had has long since expired. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G8 as a talk page of a nonexistent page. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: List of British dark comedies was restored as per its RfD, so that makes this a retarget vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of British dark comedies (which has been restored per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 28#List of British dark comedies) as that's where the content that was originally created here now lives, per the spirit of WP:RDRAFT. I don't believe that redirects resulting from accepted drafts created in this way are eligible for G8 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf. I concur G8 doesn't apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does G8 not apply? WP:G8 does not list redirects from drafts as exemptions to CSD G8. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's Pppery's explanation when removing it from G8. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I suspect that redirects of this sort completely slipped my mind when I made that edit in March 2018 (although it's difficult to remember four years ago). Even accepting that, G8 doesn't apply here because this page is not, and never was, a talk page in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if they were included in G8, speedy deletion does not apply to any page where there are good faith objections to deletion, as there are here. G8 explicitly excludes pages that are useful to Wikipedia, and the consensus noted at WP:RDRAFT (and previously explicitly in the G8 language when this was the location drafts were created) is that retaining these redirects is beneficial to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of British dark comedies as the former location of a draft of that article. A7V2 (talk) 08:08, 13 September 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. In addition to receiving a numerical majority, arguments for deletion make a compelling case for why the preexisting article would be WP:SNOW at AfD _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2019 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election → Elections in Jammu and Kashmir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2019 → Elections in Jammu and Kashmir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Added. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there weren't any legislative assembly election in JnK in 2019 -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to the article without prejudice to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a perfect example of inappropriate article content to restore. We should not and cannot restore false and/or outdated information. As explained at Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, there has not been a Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election since 2014 and there is not one scheduled. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether article content is appropriate or not is something that can only be judged at an appropriate venue for discussing article content. RfD is not such a venue, AfD is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  RfD is the appropriate venue for discussing redirects, which this is. Please provide evidence of scope for an article at this title. There was not an election in 2019, so you are making an argument to restore false information, which is absolutely in violation of WP:V. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The page history contains a sourced article stating that elections "are due to be held in 2019". Whether there is scope for an article about elections that were due to happen but did not is not something that RfD is an appropriate venue to discuss for multiple reasons. You are not the sole arbiter of what is appropriate article content. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Lol, I'm not trying to be a "sole arbiter", this is a discussion to establish consensus on what to do with this redirect and I'm explaining my position for anyone who wants to read it to help them come to the common sense conclusion. Can you at least take a step back and think about what you're wanting to restore? Would you really think it's appropriate to restore an entirely outdated article that only establishes that an election is "due to be held in 2019" in 2022? -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it were to be restored and then preserved as-is forever, definitely not. However this is a wiki, I'm proposing it be restored so that those with knowledge of the subject can properly and easily evaluate it so that it can be updated, merged or deleted after discussion in venues where articles are properly discussed and those people who are knowledgeable about the topic and/or have other relevant expertise relating to discussions of article content like this can find it. I have considered what I am proposing to be restored and, having considered it, relevant policies and guidelines, past consensuses and general practice, I believe that the goals of the project will best be served by restoring the article for the reasons I've explained here and in multiple previous discussions where you've objected to doing things properly. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing there to update because the election in question did not take place—the redirected article reads like a faulty crystal ball. It would either be a restoration to promote false/outdated information, which is very much not in the best interests of this project or be a restoration purely for the exercise of deletion elsewhere, which makes little sense because it would be twice the effort for the same obvious result. If you have any reliable sourcing that the election was scheduled to take place in 2019, then that can be noted at Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election and then this can be retargeted there. That is the only other outcome besides deletion that would not be to the detriment of this project. The source in the redirected article is from 2018 and notes that it would be "not anytime soon" so I have not seen establishment of a 2019 date. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak restore article and presumably send to AFD (and retarget the second redirect to it so it can share its fate at AFD). Second First preference is to retarget to Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election where the lack of an election taking place since the 2018 dissolution is discussed. A7V2 (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @A7V2: What value do you see in this article? I'm genuinely at a loss how AfD would be of benefit here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What value was there in BLARing the existing article to a target which does not discuss the 2019 (non)election? This should have been PRODed or AFDed instead. I don't see any particular value in the article but I don't believe RFD is the place to be deleting articles, especially not referenced ones (see this version [3]). A7V2 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • A redirect is certainly more defendable than the article that was there given that by that point there was not going to be an election. FacetsOfNonStickPans was the one that redirected it in case they want to weigh in on that decision. In the three years since it has become established as a redirect, so RfD is the correct venue to delete this redirect. If there is potential value in the article content and/or if the status quo is not a redirect, then yes, the article should be restored. If you don't actually want to keep the article, then !voting to restore it just to watch it be deleted at AfD is a pointless exercise in bureaucracy and a waste of time for everyone. Let me ask the question a slightly different way: do you see enough value in the article to !vote to keep it at AfD? Simply having sources is not good enough because they can become outdated (like in this example). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would prefer that a PROD were an option and only then it gets deleted if we decide it shouldn't exist as a redirect. Perhaps there is an argument to be made that former articles not meeting CSD (and which aren't being retained as part of a merge) are only ever soft deleted at RFD. Thinking about it a bit longer though in this particular case I do agree it should be straight deleted in case it is not kept/retargeted since it is mostly incorrect information and I'm not going to be the one to bother to write a correction before nominating it for deletion at AFD. I still think that Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election is a potential target, I am neutral between deletion and retargeting there. A7V2 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as misleading. As per the source provided in the first edit of the article: Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik said that fresh elections in the state may not be imminent but can be held with 2019 Lok Sabha polls. Someone can add this information to Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election in the past tense, but it won't help this redirect unless its title is changed to something like Proposed 2019 election. If information is available, we can create a redirect with a proper title, and do not require the history of the current redirect for that. Restoring (except for a speedy delete) to a revision that talks about 2019 in future tense will only be bringing outdated content to mainspace. Jay 💬 03:30, 20 September 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) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 93rd century → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 94th century → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 95th century → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm nominating these three separately because part of their history consists of Dklover77 converting them into articles when they were "not [...] notable centur[ies] yet." Until sufficient info is known about these centuries, these can be deleted unless someone can provide a justification or suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 01:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: By per above, if you meant WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#31st-40th, 100th centuries, your vote there was as several of these centuries are discussed at the current timeline. Are you saying that 93rd, 94th, 95th centuries are also discussed? If so where, and what does "current timeline" mean? Jay 💬 16:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per above:

While they may be a bit far-fetched, these redirects are topically valid. While we do not have a better link target than the current one at present, this will (predictably) change in the future. If there are sub-topics referring to one of these centuries specifically, the existence of these redirects allows to link to a specific century already. This makes it possible to use reverse lookup to find events which will happen in a specific century.

While I personally would not have created these redirects at this early stage, now that they have been created and with it being predictable that they would have to be (re-)created in the (distant) future, there is zero point in deleting them. It is often more efficient to have one editor bulk-create redirects following a certain pattern than having to create the redirects on an individual basis by different editors (and in this case even over a span of centuries). It takes less time and energy and it ensures consistency. Sometimes we first add contents and then create infrastructure, but sometimes the infrastructure gets created before the contents. Since we have no timeline and are building this encyclopedia not only for the currently living population but also for users in the distant future, there is no harm done if we keep these redirects. None of the valid deletion criteria at WP:R#DELETE applies, whereas at least WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 apply.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All - Keep votes do not demonstrate any articles nor content these could point to. The idea that we should keep these for 7000 years until we can write something about the subject is unsound and really is just a variation of NOHARM. I am pretty sure that Wikipedians of the 92nd century don't need our help in choosing a consistent article name for them. I also note that it is unlikely they will be writing in a language recognisable as English, so the consistency would then fail. When it comes down to it, there is no valid redirect target for these now and if any article emerges in the future that is a valid target, recreating a redirect (or indeed an article) is trivial. As there is no valid target, no information to be found, these should all be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete any in which the century in question is not mentioned in the target article. The topic is valid, but for the redirect to be valid there must be content to sustain it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 18 September 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 92nd century → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 98th century → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 99th century → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm also listing these three separately for similar reasons to 93-95, but with sockpuppet account 98th Century converting them into articles. They're also not mentioned on the target page. Regards, SONIC678 01:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: By per above, if you meant WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#31st-40th, 100th centuries, your vote there was as several of these centuries are discussed at the current timeline. Are you saying that 92nd, 98th-99th centuries are also discussed? If so where, and what does "current timeline" mean? Jay 💬 16:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "these centuries" refers to all of the centuries from 31th to 100th centuries as a whole (spread across four or five RfDs for no good reason). The fact that they are spread across five RfDs does not change my general argument, which is effectively the same as SnowFire's in that discussion (Seems the most relevant article to redirect to regardless (even for "missing" centuries, if any events are added that take place in them in the future, it'd likely be this article), so it's useful). And I suspect by current timeline I meant the current target, which is a timeline.

  I participated in this series of RfDs as if it were one mass nomination, as the only relevant distinguishing factor between them is past histories as articles, which only matters if a deletion is considered. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as above. These do not meet the information need of someone following the link as the page does not discuss the centuries. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per above:

While they may be a bit far-fetched, these redirects are topically valid. While we do not have a better link target than the current one at present, this will (predictably) change in the future. If there are sub-topics referring to one of these centuries specifically, the existence of these redirects allows to link to a specific century already. This makes it possible to use reverse lookup to find events which will happen in a specific century.

While I personally would not have created these redirects at this early stage, now that they have been created and with it being predictable that they would have to be (re-)created in the (distant) future, there is zero point in deleting them. It is often more efficient to have one editor bulk-create redirects following a certain pattern than having to create the redirects on an individual basis by different editors (and in this case even over a span of centuries). It takes less time and energy and it ensures consistency. Sometimes we first add contents and then create infrastructure, but sometimes the infrastructure gets created before the contents. Since we have no timeline and are building this encyclopedia not only for the currently living population but also for users in the distant future, there is no harm done if we keep these redirects. None of the valid deletion criteria at WP:R#DELETE applies, whereas at least WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 apply.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument here is just WP:NOHARM. There is clearly no benefit either from having redirects created and ready for an editor in 7100 years. They are not going to be thanking us for our foresight in creating these for their Wikipedia article. There is no efficiency gain here and consistency will be out of the window considering language drift will ensure they are not writing in English. The question is whether there is any benefit in pre-emptively having redirects around that don't point to any content and are not expected to in our lifetime and beyond. We don't keep redirects that don't point to content. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete any in which the century in question is not mentioned in the target article. The topic is valid, but for the redirect to be valid there must be content to sustain it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per the above and per my reasoning in other of these discussions. BD2412 T 05:53, 19 September 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 23:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Prakrtic plane → Plane (esotericism)#Physical plane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Prakritic plane → Plane (esotericism)#Physical plane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, no relevant results in Google Scholar and internet searches for "Prakrtic", results for "Prakritic plane" show some use in esotericism but do not clearly identify it with the physical plane, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From what I've been able to make out, in Theosophy and/or Christian theosophy there are seven "Prakritic planes" of which the Physical plane is the lowest. If my understanding is correct we're redirecting a broad topic to a subtopic, which is usually not helpful and certainly when there is no mention at the target. It's entirely possible that one or both of these will be useful titles in the future, but relevant content needs to come first. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is Theosophy but whether it is notable Theosophy is open for debate. If it belonged anywhere it would be in an article about Blavatsky's cosmology. This planes article is problematic because an editor is trying to make it generic in a way that makes it no longer about any one thing, but it clearly has no section on the Prakritic plane so the redirect needs deleting. This redirect is one I missed, but it is related to this one which has attracted few comments [4]. In that case, too, the creator has directed to a sub section that doesn't really talk about the purported subject at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 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 CineScope. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned as a synonym of the target; possibly redirecting this to CineScope as per the hatnote might be better. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The intention of the redirect was as a possible/probable misspelling/typing of CinemaScope. No real objections to a redirect to CineScope, though not sure about the significance of the current article at that target - I am doubtful of the notability of the small cinema in Narayanganj, which appears to only have local significance, and which doesn't appear on a Google search for "cinescope", whereas several other companies and cinemas do: [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. There may be potential for a disamb page at CineScope because there are other related terms which could be misspelled, such as Kinescope, Kinetoscope, etc. However, redirecting to the existing CineScope is acceptable as there is a hatnote pointing to CinemaScope. SilkTork (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it seems like all participants to some extent favor retargetting to CineScope it seems to have pretty weak support, so a first relist for further discussion seems appropriate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 17:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to CineScope. Another hatnote can be added to Kinescope if necessary. Whether or not the cinema is notable isn't really in the scope of this discussion, PROD or AFD it if you feel it isn't notable. A7V2 (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to CineScope. If there's doubt about the notability of that target then send it to WP:AFD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 16 September 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Random Monsters (Heroscape) → Heroscape  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not a faction in Heroscape, and there is no reason that any person would need to search this term to reach the game. TNstingray (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as dud redirect per nom. scope_creep^Talk 15:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Further, not mentioned at target article. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: per the page's previous article content, this is not a faction but a term supposedly used in the game. I don't know how factual that is as I haven't played it myself. BOZ (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who does plays the game, this term is not used anywhere. This and the rest of the page are just original research on the part of an overzealous fan. TNstingray (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:10, 16 September 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fietro → Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: A–L#Ralph Bohner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is there really any reason to have a throw-away line as a redirect? This is not the characters name, and was used just one time in passing mention. TNstingray (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as relatively harmless. A Google search of 'Fietro' shows that this is apparently a term used to mean 'Fake Pietro'. As someone who has never watched the show, I don't know what that means, but it is used in the titles of at least one media article. See here ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one is fine to keep, it's a legitimate alt name for the character in the show. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tragedy (Steps song) → Tragedy (Bee Gees song)#Steps version  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this redirect to Heartbeat (Steps song) or to Tragedy (Bee Gees song)#Steps version? The redirect's history (with the latest change being made by an IPv6 user) shows that where to redirect to appears to be controversial. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it goes with WP:SONGCOVER, per below that it stated that the cover versions of the said song should not have an article, and it should be in a section of the article of the original song. Covers are enough to be redirected to the original version. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:9CA5:F403:EF23:F45A (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I used this redirect not too long back and Tragedy (Bee Gees song)#Steps version contained exactly what I was looking for. I would have been very surprised to arrive at the article for a different song. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is content about this version of the song, and we should provide access to it. It is not clear to everyone what song is a cover and which is an original. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: IP has a good argument per WP:SONGCOVER. TartarTorte 22:51, 12 September 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 Myanmar. ✗plicit 14:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• State of Myanmar → State of Burma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Myanmar. The English translation of the country's name from Burma to Myanmar was changed only in 1989. Privybst (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. The target entity ceased to exist in 1945 and, based on a quick skim of the article, was never referred to as "Myanmar" in English. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. No evidence State of Burma was ever known as State of Myanmar. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:45, 12 September 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Canadian Republic → Republic of Canada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Republicanism in Canada, and move hatnote there of course. Privybst (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - "Canadian Republic" refers to an entity, not an idea. If anything, the query will be searching for Canada, but this is resolved by the headnote. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redirect is reasonable and the target has an effective hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:26, 16 September 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. There is agreement that there is content that can be added to the target, and perhaps one week's time was not sufficient for this. This may be re-nominated in the future if content still could not be added. Jay 💬 16:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Xanthocroi → Nordic race  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Not-included misspelling of "Xanthochroi" (which has a different target). Hildeoc (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and mention Xanthocroi somewhere at the target. Modern coinages from Ancient Greek roots aren't easy to spell in general. Xanthochroi targets Historical race concepts#Thomas Huxley's racial definitions, which states "By the late nineteenth century, Huxley's Xanthochroi group had been redefined as the Nordic race, whereas his Melanochroi became the Mediterranean race." Accordingly, the piped link below the map there leads directly to Nordic race. Huxley's own use of the term sounds a lot like the Nordic race concept too: "They are of tall stature and have the skin almost colourless, and so delicate that the blood really shows through it. The eyes are blue or grey; the hair light, ranging from straw-colour to red or chestnut; the beard and body-hair abundant." Glades12 (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Removed some slight redundancy 11:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Glades12: I guess, the correct (!) term should ideally be introduced in Nordic race then, as is the case analogously with Melanochroi being elucidated at Mediterranean race. Hildeoc (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added yet to the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:07, 12 September 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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 05:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Work management → ja:ワークマネジメント  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Per Wikipedia:Soft redirects, "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they are generally unhelpful to English-language readers. " Fram (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create a "work management" page in English, but gave up due to the opinion that it was not necessary.

So, for the time being, I thought that a soft redirect to the post-Japan page would be a good solution.

Even Japanese pages can be easily translated into English by Google, etc., so I don't think it's a big problem. Mocha c jp (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect to Japanese has been canceled.

It has been replaced with a document translated into English.

Please consider. Mocha c jp (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The existence of this helps only Japanese speakers and disguises the fact that we don't have any content about the topic - based on google hits this is a notable topic we should have an article about. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above and per policy. Work management is not uniquely Japanese, and redirecting to Japanese Wikipedia is only going to confuse most people. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redirecting an English phrase to a Japanese page is astonishing to anglophones. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: this an ambiguous expression. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:33, 16 September 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. BD2412 T 19:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Typhoon Vongfong (old) → List of storms named Vongfong  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No idea what the intention was here, but Typhoon Vongfong (old) should be moved back to Typhoon Vongfong, and what is now at Typhoon Vongfong either deleted or merged if people want to have the history for some reason. Fram (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after merging any histories that need it per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Typhoon Vongfong (old) was an attempt by Compton420 to subvert the decision at Talk:Typhoon Vongfong (2020) and redirect "Typhoon Vongfong" to the 2020 storm. Since the current Typhoon Vongfong redirect was retargeted, the attempt is essentially moot. There's no significant history on either page, so just deleting the (old) one is enough. I don't have a strong attachment as creator of the now (old) redirect, so I'm alright with having that deleted instead of deleting the new redirect by Compton and moving the old redirect back in its place without leaving a redirect (which seems like a hassle). Chlod (say hi!) 10:52, 12 September 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 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Cum → Help:Creation and usage of media files  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect has a title that is not, but should be in FULL CAPS as per WP:SCNAMES. It was created from a page move to WP:CUM and has not been edited since then. It should be deleted because WP:CUM serves the purpose. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 05:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. CUM is not even a proper acronym for the target and it really just seems like someone is having a laugh at this. That being said, the lowercase is especially improper and rarely used. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trolling or some other unconstructive page creation. Not sure why this is being debated or what argument there could be for keeping it. The page could easily be called WP:MEDIACREATION instead, this seems like a prank. 00:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharding (talk • contribs)

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 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Titania / Mary MacPherran → Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a very non-standard format, especially with the slash, which makes it an unlikely search term. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 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 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Aneka (Marvel Cinematic Universe) → Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: A–L  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned in target article -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a notable character, so she won't have an entry on the Characters page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Reports are that this character will appear in Wakanda Forever, but it is WP:TOOSOON to know whether it will be a role sufficient to merit further mention. BD2412 T 04:49, 12 September 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 03:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Swan Song (upcoming film) → Swan song (disambiguation)#Films  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are no "upcoming films" subjects at the target. Most likely, this redirect formerly referred to Swan Song (2021 Benjamin Cleary film) and Swan Song (2021 Todd Stephens film). Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundent. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While this is still getting some views (12 in the last 30 days) this is very significantly fewer than at the start of the year and with no clear single target it's not clear that those using it will find what they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media which apply to these kinds of redirects. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not required, and in this case ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:05, 16 September 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 03:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

No affinity for the French language. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pretty sure the other countries don't have a French spelling redirect. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 00:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Countries with strong ties to the French language should have such redirects, e.g. République centrafricaine, but not those which don't. I can find no evidence of any affinity between Uzbekistan and French. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. We simply cannot have directs for every page in every language. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Uzbekistan has no significant ties with French-speaking cultures. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:26, 14 September 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 03:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dreamland (upcoming thriller film) → Dreamland#Films  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure which films at the target page this redirect refers to, but either way, it does not seem as though there are any "upcoming film" subjects listed on the target page at the present time. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no recollection of creating this link, and am fine with deleting it. BD2412 T 00:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412: Guess that makes two of us. I forgot all about this discussion: Talk:Dreamland (2019 American film)#Requested move 15 February 2019. I used to vaguely remember everything I do on Wikipedia, but I don't remember this at all! Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well there you go. Perhaps we should have some category of redirects that automatically expire and disappear after some set period of time. BD2412 T 03:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media, but Thryduulf below is one of its strongest opponents. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      I oppose the speedy deletion proposal for the same reasons I oppose automatic expiry - not everything that could be deleted using it should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no longer getting any page views. I would oppose redirects automatically expiring as the length of time they are useful for is not possible to predict. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a G7 since the redirect creator consented to deletion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mellohi!: WP:G7 doesn't apply per the move discussion I linked; the redirect is technically a {{R from move}}. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To add to this: BD2412 moved the article without leaving a redirect and then subsequently recreated it, which obfuscated the fact that it was moved. The logs for this page make this a bit clearer, and shows that Cinemacriterion is the author (due to the fact that they titled the article that is now at Crisis (2021 film) in this fashion). -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:37, 14 September 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 03:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mimi (upcoming film) → Mimi#Arts and entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There seem to no longer be any "upcoming film" subjects at the target, leaving this redirect's disambiguator erroneous and unhelpful. Most likely, in the past, this redirect referred to Mimi (2021 Hindi film) or Mimi (2021 Nigerian film). Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it is no longer getting any page views, only 8 this year and none since May, so its utility has evidently passed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media which apply to these kinds of redirects. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:25, 12 September 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 03:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Home (upcoming TV series) → Home (disambiguation)#Series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target disambiguation page does not list any "upcoming TV series" subjects; all listed have already been released and/or started. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No hits at all since November last year, unambiguously no longer needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media which apply to these kinds of redirects. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:25, 12 September 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.