Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 0 0
TfD 0 0 2 0 2
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 2 1 3
RfD 0 0 28 6 34
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD

[edit]
Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

[edit]


Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

[edit]
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

[edit]
Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

[edit]
Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list

[edit]
Shortcuts

November 9

[edit]

Mohammed Jafar

[edit]

Not mentioned in the article. Looking this up, it appears to be a very briefly used fake alias in the episode Lisa's Wedding (that scene is set in a predicted future and is therefore not part of the Simpsons' continuity). Xeroctic (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.1415926535…

[edit]

Delete. This has been created a few months ago. It is just the maximum number of digits that Wikipedia happens to allow for a page title. This is not a reasonable search term, and I would argue it fails rule #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE: being a novel or obscure synonym that's unlikely to be useful. The edit summary for its creation, which is "255 (the max) number of characters. Lol.", also makes me wonder if this was a joke edit (this user has had something of an "obsession" with the 255 character limit, compare this example). Renerpho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some readers may stumble on a very long series of digits and not realize it is pi, so they would search it up, truncating as necessary. Ca talk to me! 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And where does "truncating as necessary" at exactly 255 digits come in? Truncating at 256 will result in an error, and truncating at 254 leads to a redirect that doesn't exist. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Longest technically possible version of a number that is infinite. This is especially relavent because it is a non-repeating number that it is not uncommon to memorize many digits out in popular math culture. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for too long to look at the digits. What is the point of adding these huge numbers of digits, expecting the audience to search the number of Pi in an alternative way by those digits they memorize? If they would like to search for this mathematical constant, can't they just type "Pi" instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix, et al. and my arguments at a similar discussion that took place in March 2021. It's unambiguous, harmless, and potentially helpful to people searching for pi regardless of how many digits they type in. Like Tamzin argues above me, this is a plausible truncation of the full number pi (which has thousands, millions, possibly even billions of digits), just like all the other pi-digit redirects I cited in that discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way to use this redirect AFAIK is to memorize hundreds of digits of pi and actually type (or paste) an exact number of these digits into the search engine. All modern engines would try to autocomplete the prompt (the one in Wikipedia after 3.141592 is typed will identify just the Pi and this strange redirect, so it would be great to hear a description of the scenario, where a genius who memorized all these digits (1) does not know that they belong to pi and (2) is oblivious to the suggestion of the search engine. Викидим (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep technically correct redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.
If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.
(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.
Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't follow that because we don't delete a redirect of a certain character, we should therefore create others of the same character, or even encourage, or even not discourage such creations. With articles these three lines are so close that for most people and most purposes they merge into one. Redirects are different because they can be harmless, they don't advertise their presence like articles, and they are very cheap in all resources, especially editor resources (unless they get nommed for deletion). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Not all truncations are plausible search terms, but this one is because it will catch every one using both it and any longer titles. It will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people using slightly shorter tuncations to the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as implausible and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706. It's clear that nobody would reasonably type this in for anything other than novelty (I am not convinced by the "copy paste" argument, more on that below) and these types of titles cause more trouble and discussion than its worth, all for reaching a two-character article. We wouldn't permit e (number) or square root of 3 to have these types of titles, and all of these digits are not discussed at Pi either, making the full length of this title an undiscussed subject at the target page. We don't have any material on Wikipedia about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrary space)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. This number doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Conversely, we have an article on the mathematical constant, and that constant has this value at two hundred and fifty-five significant figures. By extension, this redirect is misleading because all of these digits included in the search term are not listed at the target, so people who want to read about all of the digits they typed in, wouldn't be able to. Tests to copy-pasting into the search bar do not work for me, as the search bar does not accept anything longer than 255, gives a MediaWiki error and/or "no results matching the query". But Google takes more than 255 characters and actually HAS all of the digits listed on various pi sites. so if "someone sees it without context", Google seems the way to go. A Wikipedia redirect for not 254, not 256, but exactly 255 digits of unmentioned material, does not seem useful or helpful, nor realistic for reading the Wikipedia article about Pi. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A correction (I admit I wasn't careful enough when I tested this myself): If you search for between 256 and 300 digits, you'll just not find anything (neither the current redirect, nor Pi). It is only when you enter 301 or more digits that you get the error message. Compare H:S vs. WP:TITLELENGTH. Renerpho (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This redirect is not just this redirect, it's this AND EVERYTHING LONGER. It's plausible, as they could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect. Unambiguously accurate target. Harmless. WP:CHEAP. For the record, I would not mind if literally every amount of digits between this and 3.14 was also a redirect, but that is another discussion. Fieari (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "They could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect" -- that is not true. Pasting in anything longer and clicking "search" results in an error, with or without this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And for completeness, using a smaller number of digits (say, 254) isn't helped by this redirect either. Clicking "search" doesn't find the article, but Wikipedia's auto-completion will suggest 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which leads them to the correct target. The redirect in question is only useful if users paste in that exact number of digits. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Renerpho, this redirect is a handful of bytes in size, and it is obviously going to the right place. The fact it is "only useful" if the user types in something non-standard is completely fine, that is the very point of a redirect. By my count, you've made 10 comments over 23 edits on this RFD - it may be beneficial to take a step back, the outcome of this is not really a big deal in the wider scheme of things. BugGhost🦗👻 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment Renerpho was responding to states this redirect works for 255 characters and "EVERYTHING LONGER [sic]"; capitalization not mine. The strength from the !vote seems to be derived from (>255) functionality. Renerpho then says that it's not actually the case, and that the redirect only functions at 255 digits exactly, or (=255). (Indeed, I've come to the same conclusion from my tests). You then say that's "completely fine", seeming to agree with the (=255) status, a wholly different state of mind from what Fieari stated in their !keep. Where is the goalpole? Is this being !kept for encapsulating everything beyond >255, or exactly =255? Because I was led to believe the former, as the only reason it could be seen as exceptional and not meet a fiery fate alongside the rest of the overly long "exact digit matches", such as this (deleted) (=28) and this (deleted) (=35) and this (example of reasonable length) (=12) and this (speedy deleted) (=208) and this (speedy deleted) (=29) and this (deleted) (=98). We deleted these because digits of pi aren't listed on the page. This indicated "consensus to limit" these, but no rule beyond the existing outlier of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. It's cannot be "obviously going to the right place" if obnoxiously long pi redirects have been discussed ad nauseum and historically deleted at 100% certainty @RfD every single year since 2011.{{cn}} Utopes (talk / cont) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: Consensus can shift, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Right now, a small majority of votes is in favour of keep, and claiming consensus to delete it looks illusory at this point. I feel like this really opens Pandora's box though. If we keep this one then we should think carefully about how we limit redirects like this in the future. There are some serious votes here, staying unchallenged by most other keep voters, for creating redirects to literally every possible truncation. That would be a huge shift in policy. But even if we only allow the redirect with 255 digits as a special exception (because it's considered useful for some reason, even if based on a misconception of how the search function works), why only for Pi? What about any other notable real number? Renerpho (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Renerpho: I'm not sure what you mean if you're responding to me, I'm !voting delete. I totally agree with where you're coming from. Creating a redirect for every single amount of digits for specifically only pi is not reasonable or practical imo. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: I did intend to respond to you. The argument that this was historically deleted at 100% certainty isn't really relevant if the consensus has changed since. I am trying to understand the consequences of what we're doing here, and if Bugghost is right that I was/am overreacting. I stepped away for three days, and what's happening looks as wrong now as it did when I left. I don't plan to make many further comments in this discussion. BugGhost is right that this isn't worth a big hoo-haa either way. Still, I'm trying to understand where we're coming from with the serious arguments for keep (that's not a question to you, Utopes, just something I'm asking myself). Renerpho (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree consensus can change. It was just interesting because it seems like people who are !keeping have not actually tried typing more than 255 digits (it doesn't work). So the only way this works is exactly 255 digits. But we deleted exactly 98 digits and many others, historically. So if the assumption is that we are keeping this because "exactly 255 digits is plausible", my question for !keepers is "what makes exactly 255 digits more plausible than exactly 98 digits", which was deleted. Because the fact that MediaWiki prevents things more than 255, is purely coincidence and not something that a casual reader could possibly consider when beginning their quest of typing 255 numbers and then stopping immediately. And then do we do this for every number with repeating decimals? 0.999? 1.00000 and 255 zeroes? Because 1.0 redirects to 1, and that's a whole number. For the last 14 years it seems that any amount of decimals beyond 30 is viewed as utterly implausible. But consensus can change! So I'm curious exactly what became different, where two years ago =98 digits (no more no less) was unfathomable but =255 digits (no more no less) is a-okay. Oh well. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let me know the search engine that you tried with a larger number of digits. I tried quite a few, and did not get the results described by you. Викидим (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes and others. Come on people, this is exactly the sort of useless stuff that WP:PANDORA is suited for. And for all you keepers, why Pi? Why not Chronology of computation of π or Approximations of π instead? Wouldn't someone pasting in so many digits be more likely interested in the computational aspects of generating those digits and not a general article on the number itself? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those targets would WP:ASTONISH. If a user searches a decimal version of pi (no matter the quantity of digits) then Pi should be target; we shouldn't guess that they would prefer a more niche article. BugGhost🦗👻 07:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nothing should be the target, because no one is going to search for exactly 255 digits, as others have already pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with @Utopes and say delete and salt on the basis that this redirect is excessively and unreasonably large. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for previous reasons. It would be more costly in terms of bandwidth to delete the redirect, as there is a very small chance someone might actually use it. Not problematic, as an opposition to WP:COSTLY. 2003 LN6 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While 255 characters may be the limit, I find it implausible that someone is going to type all 255 characters (or even copy and paste 255 characters; where would they even get 255 characters from? I would argue for keep if the search bar limit was 255 characters, but that's not the case). Procyon117 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the search bar limit, anyway? (It's 300, not 255; 255 I think is the limit for the length of article titles.) Renerpho (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely no policy reason to delete. It is by no means novel or obscure. It's a very cheap way of getting people to the right place, compared with the cost of having a discussion about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirects are cheap but this is straight up implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless and accurate ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 15:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamster717, most editors are requested to delete for long digit number in terms of approximation equals to pi. But can you clarify your proof? It seems that WP:CHEAP is not advisable as harmless. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I swayed back and forth on this one but ultimately it’s just not plausible that someone’s going to search exactly this many digits of pi. And yes, this is a pretty straight-forward example of WP:Pandora. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: harmless and unambiguous. Deleting for the sake of deleting. C F A 💬 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Aside from the inanity of it, unnecessary redirects are not entirely harmless (and we should stop using harmlessness as a rationale):
    1. I periodically have to search for all uses of redirects to an article to do some associated cleanup maintenance, and having a multitude of such redirects makes this painfully tedious work.
    2. When redirects for misspellings or other deprecated versions of a term exist, this hides inadvertent spelling errors by editors that they (or others) would ordinarily be alerted to by a redlink.
    3. WP search suggestion already works suggesting article through similarity of spelling, so we do not even need the search benefit of minor variants being redirects. —Quondum 14:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator If more input is needed, I'm sure this would get more participation if it was relisted again. I'm leaving that decision to someone else. Renerpho (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates

[edit]

The process is not mentioned in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i mean... wp:fanom is right there... will still vote to weak delete as "not on the plausible side of xnrs" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late 00s recession

[edit]

Ambigous with Panic of 1907 and possibly Panic of 1901 (depending on one's definition of "late"), given the redirect does not make it clear which century it refers. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote. Very nearly 100% of google hits for the exact phrase return results related to the target, so in practice it is nowhere near as ambiguous as it seems in theory. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "...in theory"? Literally explaining how something is ambiguous and providing examples is not a theory, it's a fact. Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something is ambiguous in theory if the plain reading of the words can refer to multiple things. It is only ambiguous in practice if people use those words to refer to multiple different things. Only the latter matters for our purposes, and people don't use these words to refer to things other than the current target, even if they theoretically could. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I think you have the concepts of being ambiguous and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC confused with each other...? Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are related. When something is only used for one of several theoretically possible meanings, that meaning is by definition primary, but there can also be a primary topic when multiple meanings are in use. In the present circumstance though, whether you want to say the current use is the primary topic or the current use is unambiguous in practice, the outcome in terms of the redirect is the same. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell Harr

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Claire Miller

[edit]

This is a fictional character in a 2008 film - cannot see any point in the redirect, and confuses with another Claire Miller (with no article as yet). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting to Claire Rochester?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President of Spain

[edit]

Disambiguate. I do not see why a historical role should have primacy over this term over a current head-of-government position (Prime Minister of Spain) officially called a "president". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 05:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodel

[edit]

This was blanked by Quindraco. When I investigated, I saw why. "Asmodel" was removed from List of DC Comics characters: A, therefore breaking the redirect. It was if Asmodel, who is apparently a ten foot angel/devil, simply blinked out of existence. I would imagine this would be difficult for any ten feet being to do. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Please stop move

[edit]

From the editor who created WPT:NFCC, I think the only users who would use a template redirect are editors who use templates and they would be more than acquainted with their names rather than the phrase, "Please stop move". This might be acceptable if it was reader-facing but most readers don't know templates exist, much less be searching for a specific one. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this, I got a red alert message about this entry because it involved a template redirect. But I think that this discussion should happen here, rather than at TFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and because "please stop move" sounds more like a plea to the universe to stop a page move than a warning to someone to stop moving pages (and there's no apparent reason why it should use the level 3 warning specifically anyway). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaFile

[edit]

No mention of "file" at the target article. Was created with the edit summary "website of", but this is not accounted for at the target. The website that IS given, for Asia Society, is asiasociety.org. Without any context this redirect is unhelpful, and misleading as people who search this term are not given the context as to why they ended up here. Maybe a reader was looking for a file about China? No answers, currently. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaFile is an online magazine published by the Asia Society. (See https://asiasociety.org/center-us-china-relations/chinafile) W9793 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine is mentioned in the lead now, but it would probably help to provide further context later on in the article too, maybe under Functions. Reconrabbit 22:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Does the mention in the article influence this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The mention in the article is sufficient to support the redirect; while some more information about ChinaFile might be helpful, as far as we're concerned here at RfD, this is the correct target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

[edit]

Fpoon

[edit]

This is terminology that was created primarily from a Key & Peele sketch. Searching for "fpoon" brings up exclusively K&P related videos and the urban dictionary citing them. While this might be a portmanteau of "fork" and "spoon", this is not a widely accepted or cited synonym, and is not mentioned at the target. The common and non-confusing name for this subject is "spork"; a lack of pageviews indicate that "fpoon" may be a novel and obscure synonym for the subject, and is likely to confuse readers. Especially so as "fpoon" is not a real word, or particularly grammatical. People who use this term may very well be looking for the Continental Breakfast K&P sketch, lol. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I do know Key & Peele are hardly the first to come up with this portmanteau. My Elementary School came up with this term (to roarous laughter) sometime in the mid 2000's, significantly predating Key & Peele's coining, and I would have to guess we got it from somewhere just as they did. Conceptually, the jump to a inverted portmanteau is pretty simple, and while it may not be a word I draw serious issues with litigating the legitimacy of a word in a Wikipedia RfD log. Considering there is no central authority for accepted language in English, the fact that Googling the term provides several results (no mater how focused on one subject they may be) is, I think, enough of a reason to say it is a word. Beyond all of that, fpoon is no more grammatical then spork, we're just used to spork. (yes, the fp is not a frequently found constant grouping in English, but novel use of a constant group is hardly cause to call something not a word, if it was than vroom, vlog, dreamt, and bulb are all in trouble (vr, vl, mt, and lb respectively)). Foxtrot620 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "It's funny" and "people have come up with it before" are not valid arguments to retain the redirect. There has to be some evidence of common usage to refer to sporks in that way, which there isn't. See also WP:NOTNEO for more details. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Meh, it's a somewhat plausible {{R from incorrect name}}, and its existence potentially prevents this title from being recreated. (That, and I doubt that the invention of a fork with a spoon-like end, like a handle, four-prong with three holes, then curved end, which is what I picture a "fpoon" being, makes any sense to invent.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Just realized I'm actually thinking of the more likely search term "foon", which is a redirect to a different target that has a hatnote referring readers to Spork. This nominated redirect is nonsense due to the inclusion of the "p". Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm shocked foon doesn't redirect to spork, as I've definitely heard that one a lot. Fpoon doesn't seem far off from that, and I don't really think the target is ambiguous... surely Key and Peele aren't the only ones to have ever used the term. Fieari (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fieari: I was thinking the same thing about Foon ... and I'm thinking per WP:DIFFCAPS, I agree with your shockedness and am considering retargeting or starting an RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 00:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Cemetery

[edit]

This was an article about a cemetery. Someone thought it was non-notable, so they redirected it to the town it was in. However, then it was pointed out that there are (probably) several Byron Cemeteries. As is we are targeting this to a DAB page that does not mention cemeteries. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article and put to AfD to see if this topic is notable. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. about half an hour of looking around gave me the byron public cemetery... but also other cemeteries in places named byron, other cemeteries named byron, people who turned into corpses and were buried in one of said cemeteries, and people who kicked the bucket while named byron. none of the results seemed reliable for an article, and no single cemetery got more than 2 results (that weren't obituaries, that is). the closest a "byron cemetery" came to being notable was the byron cemetery and mausoleum in fairborn, ohio, but even then, that specific cemetery is not mentioned in the city's article, and i still didn't find anything reliable about it. all of this is to say that i don't think there would be enough to work with for a dab
less prejudice against afd than usual though, seeing as it hasn't been a redirect for as long as anthem had been in development cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 23:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style:

[edit]

If this were the actual namespace, I'm pretty sure that it would be empty. Pretty sure most would just use WP:MOS. Even typing MOS: without anything in front of it would still get you to where you want to be. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if retargeted, this will probably become an implausible colon. if not retargeted, it will be a crime against the shift key. delete per nom cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi the butcher

[edit]

Although this "nickname" has been thrown around on social media, I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Retarget

[edit]

Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:Redirect? I guess we gotta retarget the retarget. That being said, there is some basis for keeping if WP:RfD explains retargeting better than the former. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is super bizarre, and I just realized, that Wikipedia:Redirect doesn't seem to contain a clear section or set of instructions for how to retarget an existing redirect. The words "retarget" and "change" are mentioned a few times, but not in context in a way where a reader searching this redirect would be satisfied with the excerpt where these words are mentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, if you know how to create a redirect, you can probably figure out how to retarget one. You just change the target page in brackets to the one you want.
Probably doesn't need more than 2-3 sentences to explain. ApexParagon (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles on Wikipedia

[edit]

Just checking to see if consensus on GA WP:XNRs have changed. This one was created more recently. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OFM Sykes

[edit]

No mention in target article. Potentially non notable. Blethering Scot 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a first-class cricketer who plays for Surrey, [3] so the target is appropriate. He may not be notable enough for his own page just yet, but he could still be added to the list (some of the people in the list are without pages), and seeing as he's only 19, he may well be notable enough for a page soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marzipan joyjoys

[edit]

No longer mentioned in the article, despite a page merge. Xeroctic (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Depression in the Middle East

[edit]

Target section doesn't exist, and there doesn't seem adequate information in the target article to refine this redirect in a way that guarantees readers will find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: This section explains that the Great Depression had severe effects in countries across the Middle East, and describes its effects in Persia and Turkey.
If this redirect page were deleted, readers might assume that this subject was too unimportant to have an article or section written about it. Jarble (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary; if this were a red link, that would prime editors to know that an article about the topic hasn't yet been written and could be written. While we can't necessarily know what a reader would think, it's unavoidable that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect to the by countries section isn't really what a reader would be looking for, I think. Persia and Turkey are not ciphers for an entire region of many countries, cultures, and conditions. If this topic is notable (it could well be; I just don't off the top of my head know much about the economic history of the region during that time), leaving it as a red link rather than a redirect will be more useful for cuing editors to know that there's not yet coverage of the subject on the wiki. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

[edit]

The Holocaust in the Netherlands, where actual pogroms happened, is a better target than a WP:RECENT football hooligan clash. मल्ल (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Pogrom" is not an established or a widely used term, looking at the coverage of this incident WP:RNEUTRAL. Retarget to the suggested article is also fine. — hako9 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested, but I suggest adding a {{for}} hatnote (not a {{redirect}} hatnote, for language reasons) to that target. It is supposedly being used in prominent sources (and probably social media but I'm not on Twitter) to refer to the recent ethnic hooliganism, but I agree that it's inappropriate and insensitive to refer to this as a pogrom when actual state-sanctioned pogroms actually happened here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Redirects are navigation aids. With the target article saying that the President of Israel characterized the attack as a pogrom, that's sufficient to make it a reasonable search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of the redirects is covered in WP:RPURPOSE. The President of Turkey characterized the president of Israel as a "genocidal murderer". Is that sufficient to make it a reasonable search term, and therefore, a redirect? M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your analogy doesn't apply. Per WP:BLP, it would be inappropriate to put into the biographical article on the President of Israel the personal attacks that some other world leader made (although it would be appropriate to say that he has been criticized). Likewise, we do not put into biographical articles all the insulting "nicknames" that Trump has given all his political opponents.
    In the case of this redirect in question, the target article specifically has the term "pogrom" in the article, and there are no WP:BLP concerns.
    It's somewhat bewildering that this is not obvious, and I need to explain it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's somewhat bewildering that you missed the obvious point: the president of Israel is not a reliable source for such a statement. His irrelevant opinion can be attributed to him, but that's about it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably delete, the usage of pogrom seems to be isolated to biased sources and should be avoided for obvious WP:NPOV concerns. I think a retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands would only work if it is retarged to something specific on that page. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. What happened yesterday in Amsterdam was characterized by reliable sources as a pogrom. This is stated in the lede of the target. What happened in the Netherlands during the Holocaust was mass-murder of Jews, but not a pogrom or a sequence of pogroms. In fact, that article does not mention pogroms and never uses the word.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have any of the WP:RSP described this as a pogrom in their own voice? — hako9 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a fresh-faced disambiguator, I came across an ambiguous link to a place in modern Belarus. I identified it.
The very next problem was identical. I solved that too.
The third one was the same, and I solved it as well.
At that point, I took a break, because for some reason I was unable to focus properly and was swearing uncontrollably. One of those three places, obliterated in the early 1940s, is commemorated by an engraved stone in the ground. The other two are not.
Calling the recent incident in Amsterdam a "pogrom" is an insult to all those who were victims of actual pogroms. FWIW, I have no Jewish heritage. Narky Blert (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murgh

[edit]

created as "urdu for 'chicken'", but apparently only sees use in the context of indian curries, and doesn't seem to be mentioned outside of the page history, the previous discussion, and butter chicken. see also murg i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; the English loanword is specifically used in Indian cookery to refer to chicken prepared for consumption, and not the actual animal-- which is the same use that the far-more-widespread from-French loanwords beef, pork, and mutton have. Those words link to their own pages that talk about the meats' usage in food, rather than the pages for cow, pig, and sheep respectively. Given this, the equivalent chicken as food page is the correct target. A hatnote, though, may be appropriate-- "Murgh" redirects here. For the specific dish known as "Murgh makhani", see butter chicken. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not English, unlike the others, so this argument falls apart. And such a hatnote would be highly inappropriate for the same reason I gave above -- there are many many dishes whose name on Indian menus would include "murgh"; pointing to just one would make no sense. And before you bring it up, disambiguating would also be wrong as entries would be nothing but WP:PTMs. A reader who doesn't know what "murgh" is will be able to figure out what it is much more easily if the redirect didn't exist, both by the nature of the search results, and the prominent link to Wiktionary. Most people would be confused as to why searching for "murgh" took them to "Chicken as food", which would give them no information that this is a word used in Indian cuisine. A simple definition is much more likely to be useful than a whole-ass article on chicken as food. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize how much of English is comprised of loanwords (that is, words pulled from other languages), right? How old does a loanword have to be, in your eyes, before it's an English word? Narrowing in on words related to food, Beef, Pork, and Mutton are all from French, as is Café. Spaghetti and Lasagna from Italian. What about Teriyaki, or Hibachi, both from Japanese? Jalapeño and Tortilla from Spanish? Ooh, Murgh is specifically from Indian, what about Chai?
    My point is that people regularly use all of these words in English speech, and if you were to remove ALL the loanwords from English, it'd sound VASTLY different.
    I'll grant you the idea that pointing to only butter chicken in the hatnote might be a bad call-- but only if you can bring up other 'murgh' dishes that have pages on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I do have to point out that the argument runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL- we can't throw our hands in the air because someone MIGHT make a page on a second or third 'murgh' dish in the future. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Retarget to Wiktionary - The discussion above has convinced me that the search is plausible, but also that we don't have any information on what the user would be looking for... namely, what does murgh mean? For that, the wiktionary entry is, in fact, the best source of useful information to the user. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it wasn't clear above, I still specifically oppose a wiktionary redirect, again, because it hides in-site search results from the user....search results which contain a Wiktionary link right at the top already anyway! Let the search feature do its job. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that search results are not guaranteed to include a Wiktionary link and can be several clicks/taps away depending on multiple factors (including how you navigated here, what device you are using and whether you have the ability to create a new article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Search results DO include a Wiktionary link, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read what I actually wrote you will see there is nothing dishonest about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note your objection, but doing the search myself, it comes up with a number of WP:PTMs that don't really provide information on the word murgh by itself, which makes me still believe that wiktionary is better suited. If they really want the search results, soft retargets provide that option. (Example soft redirect for reference what it looks like: Kiss-in) Fieari (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lunamann. The evidence shows that, contrary to the IP's assertions, this is an English word, but even if it weren't the extensive use in English language environments would make this a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence!? The existence of this redirect is downright misleading and WP:ASTONISHing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, we... we get it, you don't think this word has actually passed into English yet, and you're getting increasingly angry that everyone else says it has. Please don't bludgeon us over it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No mention of this term at the target, so we investigate FORRED considerations. If the word means "Chicken" in Urdu, then any target BESIDES chicken (equaling murgh) would be surprising. However, it apparently has a different definition in English, where it specifically relates to culinary purposes... but such purposes are nowhere to be found on the English Wikipedia, so there is no onwiki verification. There is no mention of "Murgh" or "Urdu" at either Chicken, or Chicken as food. Typically I would accept a soft redirect to wiktionary, but we have to remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This means that not only do we forbid articles from being simple dictionary definitions here, but ALSO it means that we don't create redirects for every single dictionary word on Wikipedia to send over to Wiktionary. If someone types in "Murgh" onto WikiPEDIA, it seems they'd be looking for an ENCYCLOPEDIC entry rather than a dictionary one. We have plenty of articles about murgh on Wikipedia, such as Murgh makhani and Murgh cholay. If someone wanted to look up the definition of "murgh", they'd use a dictionary, not rely on a redirect that can occasionally lie. Especially so without any verification at the target page, or any logical reason for going to a page where its not mentioned. I took a gander at the wiktionary, and the info we have at Wikt:murgh is quite subpar (i.e. a singular word). As it stands, it does not provide benefit to readers, who would receive the same benefit and more from a Wikipedia search result. A search result, which reveals what encyclopedic topics related to "murgh" that we DO have here. The partial-title matches are probably better than assuming people want to "use an encyclopedia to read a dictionary". Utopes (talk / cont) 08:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, retarget to Afghan cuisine#Chicken where it is discussed as an Afghan term. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that anyone searching for the Indian cuisine would be WP:SURPRISEd by the Afghan cuisine target, so that might also be a bad target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "someone looking for a topic we don't cover on Wikipedia, would be WP:surprised if they ended up at a topic we cover on Wikipedia". That's not at all covered in the essay that you linked to, which states "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read." Nobody would be shocked when they search the word "murgh", and see the only place where the topic of "murgh" is directly defined and discussed on Wikipedia (i.e. in Afghan cuisine). It would be different if there was no Afghan mention either, but there is.
We go by what we have, not what we want to, but don't have. If the Indian cuisine target is so important, someone would have added something related to that topic, to Wikipedia, at any point in time for the last two decades, or during the course of the discussion. Or in the future! When something is added for this Indian cuisine content, the term can be disambiguated and new redirects can be created. (Unless there IS currently-existing content related to Indian Murgh, but nobody seems to be stating that to be true. I have not found any that discuss the Indian terminology, on Wikipedia.) Utopes (talk / cont) 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except you yourself have already linked to articles that discuss individual indian murgh dishes, Butter chicken and chana masala (which is the target of murgh cholay). Add to that, Murgh musallam, and Tandoori chicken, which-- while there isn't currently a 'murgh' redirect to it, its own article and the article for Indian cuisine#Punjab describe it as such. Clearly, the individual dishes themselves are worthy of having their own articles that could be linked to in a disambuigation, so I am honestly personally shocked that Indian murgh itself HASN'T been discussed somewhere. Perhaps we simply haven't found it yet? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are Indian topics such as Murgh musallam and Murgh cholay which exist. However, those can be navigated to by typing in the full name of their respective foods. It would not make sense to send Murgh to either or any of those, as a partial title match. Hence deletion is also on the menu, pun intended. :v On that note though, neither "murgh" nor "cholay" is mentioned at Chana masala, so perhaps that should be nominated too.
I feel less strongly towards deletion now that I know about the Afghan term, which is the only location where the term is discussed on Wikipedia, and thereby should draw the target by default. It is acceptable to have the word "murgh" as it is used in murgh musallam, be of a different origin than the target of "murgh" as it is used in Afghan cuisine#Chicken, which even that lists it as "murgh-e", but still better than nothing at all.
Based on the evidence present to readers in Wikipedia mainspace, only Afghan cuisine could be the primary topic of "murgh", on the basis that it is the ONLY topic covered (individually) on Wikipedia (as is the case while I'm writing this). I'm also opposed to a hatnote, especially if this redirect points to Afghan cuisine. What would a hatnote even say? "Murgh redirects here. For the term used as Indian cuisine, please see chicken as food which contains none of the information you're looking for about 'Murgh as Indian cuisine'"? Maybe at this point, we could just disambiguate something? But it would be quite hard to justify disambiguating a list of food WP:PTMs, which such PTMs are not supposed to be listed on dabs, but I digress... Utopes (talk / cont) 02:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also re: the last sentence, this has been nominated since October 2nd. All the !keepers wanted to keep, regardless of it not being mentioned at Chicken as food, or the other suggestions where "murgh" was equally unmentioned. No evidence of usage for the Indian term of "murgh" has been aired beyond wiktionary. Now we're looking for Indian usages of "murgh" onwiki, only when the Afghan term has been brought to light? I've done a pretty hefty search myself and turned up nothing, but the best part is that if a mention is found for the Indian term later down the line, the redirect can be retargeted and/or recreated upon the revelation of such evidence, which does not even have to occur this week or this month. But in the meantime, we know what we know, and what I know is that it is mentioned on Afghan cuisine. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra — talk — c 20:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try please. Delete, keep or retarget? Since there is no update the agreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 13:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snoutlet

[edit]

No longer mentioned at the target (see history there for why I removed it). Was originally created somewhere else, which also has no mention. There is one on WP, but it's to a mere listing of an apparently minor character (unsourced) voice credit in an as yet unreleased movie, and doesn't need a redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget back to Mario & Luigi: Brothership. That's literally a major character in the game's plot and the game just released so there wouldn't be a plot summary just yet. He will definitely get a mention once the editors do a write-up on the plot. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach (games)

[edit]

Ancient redirects that are neither notable synonyms for that article nor is it used in any articles for the last 18 years. Should be deleted. For the first redirect, edit history is not notable either with only two edits and both being moves. The other two were created as redirects and never actually used. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:STAYONTOPIC

[edit]

I think this redirect should be retargeted to where WP:TOPIC and WP:OFFTOPIC lead, i.e. to Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Stay on topic.

Meanwhile, I have added a little note. Veverve (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thailan

[edit]

Casting any Pandora arguments aside, I don't think this is a plausible typo. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnit

[edit]

Casting any Pandora arguments aside, I don't think this is a plausible typo. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. possibly even ambiguous with fortnight cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik (serach engine)

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

Mothra Leo

[edit]

Mothra Leo is a fan name and its simply a rumor, besides if its a rebirth trilogy, the Mothra should be named "MOTHRA", not Leo, otherwise Toho should've changed the names of the trilogy to "Birth of Mothra Leo". 121.45.246.200 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - @121.45.246.200 does have a point though, even if I did read those three films articles in my point of view or someone else's point of view, they'd be like "Who the hell is Leo?", but I'm not a Mothra expert though, only a Godzilla expert, so yeah, I am agreeing with @121.45.246.200, someone might need to get this IP a scholarship or some sort of award. I don't know, I'm overthinking this. EIther way, I'm leaning towards delete
GojiraFan1954 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banorant

[edit]

Apparently, someone tagged this as a misspelling. It's clearly fancruft. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as implausible, but more importantly, as a bad pun cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

[edit]

This redirect doesn't direct to a pogrom -- haminoon (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you have registered today and the only edit you did id on this page. Do you mind to elaborate your point? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Jerusalem Post (1, 2, 3, 4)
  2. The Times of Israel (1, 2, 3, 4)
  3. Reuters (1 - quote)
  4. JSN (1)
  5. New York Post] (1 - quote)
  6. The New York Sun (1, 2)
  7. BBC (1, 2, 3)
  8. Israel Hayom (1)
  9. Arutz Sheva (1, 2)
  10. The Jewish Chronicle (1)
  11. The Spectator (1)
  12. The Forward (1)
  13. Ynet (1)
  14. The Jewish Press (1)
  15. Newsmax (1, 2)
  16. Legal Insurrection (1)
  17. Townhall (1)
  18. Israel Today (1)
  19. And more.
With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NJHS

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: NJHS (disambiguation) moved back to NJHS

2029 in spaceflight

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hat Simulator

[edit]

Possible WP:FANCRUFT TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PKS 0451-28

[edit]

This is a part of the target list, but it is one of 8000 and isn't mentioned as one of the notable ones there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesonet

[edit]

Delete to encourage creation of the article. High trafic redirect with the only fact present being the year of establishment. Respublik (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Someone can just expand the page into a full article, that's allowed, and that's been done on thousands of articles. You could do that now if you feel strongly about the situation, and you would be congratulated for it. Why remove the next best option which is a redirect to the founder? "High traffic redirect" suggests the page is doing something useful, redirecting to the founder of the organisation until a page on the organisation exists. I don't see why that's a reason to delete the page. "Only fact present being the year of establishment" I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where on the page said the year of establishment? A redirect of a company name to a founder could be categorised with a year of establishment, but that's just to aid navigation in categories. This one had no categories. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even IPs, so people with no Wikipedia account, can turn a redirect into a full article. On 20 September I created 2023 Taça da Liga final, redirecting to 2022–23 Taça da Liga#Final. Five days later an IP turned it into an 11K article. [8] How is this situation stopping people from making a page, which nobody in the history of the world has wanted to do yet? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IP just removed the discussion link in order to write a description of the company in promotional language. If they can do it now, what's stopping a legitimate user or IP from doing so? Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Aquarium

[edit]

It doesn't seem that "The Human Aquarium" is more likely to refer to Hadji Ali than to Mac Norton, whose article mentions the nickname in the lead, while Ali's only mentions the name six paragraphs down. Paul_012 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what Paul_012 suggest above seems accurate, so this redirect appears to be misplaced, and perhaps a DAB page is needed instead. While Hadhji appears to have more views, Mac seems to be better known for that term, and they're both from a good long time ago -- so I'm not seeing that either is clearly the primary target. TiggerJay (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DQw4w9WgXcQ

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

IRAS 13349+1428

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target page and unable to find anything on Google. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also note that when created the edit summary was "Redirecting IRAS 13349+1428 to IRAS 13349+2438 since the designation does not exist on any databases" which seems like a reason not to have created this. If it doesn't exist why would anyone search it and why target it here? A7V2 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A7V2: I guess someone clicked on it somewhere on Wikipedia? There are dozens of Wikipedia articles that link(ed) to the misspelled redirect. Template:List of Seyfert galaxies, which is used on every article about Seyfert galaxies, has used the misspelled designation since 2015, and continued to use it until I corrected the template two minutes ago. Renerpho (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and keep. Even though the redirect is relatively new, this misspelling has existed on Wikipedia for almost 10 years. There's no telling if anyone saw (and used) the wrong name. Renerpho (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Also, just to be sure: There's nothing at all near coordinates 13h34.9m +14°28' (B1950.0),[9] ruling out the possibility that someone might be looking for an actual object with that name. Renerpho (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah makes sense. Since it seems to be unambiguous, happy to keep in that case. A7V2 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you put the coordinates correctly in that sky map... by my calculations, 13h34.9m should be 13.58167, and 14°28' should be 14.46667. Leading to this. There's a faint object near it, but it's boatloads removed from IRAS 13349+2438.
    This isn't a simply typo either, IRAS 13349+1428 vs IRAS 13349+2438.
    I'm a delete on this one, and wherever the link is found should be updated to reflect what the source is meant to support. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: See above for an explanation why this redirect exists. Do you still think it should be deleted? Renerpho (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think waiting for inputs from a couple of more editors will not hurt. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: I am asking because this discussion is now eight days old -- one day over the usual deadline. We could close it, rather than waiting for someone to relist it, if all the arguments have been heard. I take that to mean you still think there's more to discuss? Renerpho (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This decision should not be left to a person with my level of astronomy knowledge. Like I said, waiting a week or two more will not hurt since "no consensus" is equivalent to "keep". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this galaxy we created out of human error. It was a redlink from 2015 until last month. Now that Renerpho has removed it from the template, we should not retain this erroneous galaxy. If ST11 (who added it to the template in the first place) says this is a genuine galaxy, he may add it back to the template, but it will remain a redlink until we have some info on it, or if it is an alternate name, it may be recreated. Jay 💬 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay, I'd agree with you completely if this human error had been a recent one. But at 10 years old, I think the chance for it to have "transcended Wikipedia" is too high (non-zero). There's no harm in keeping it. Renerpho (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is 1 month old, hence recently created. What was 10 years old, was page content that existed as a redlink, and we fix page content all the time. Jay 💬 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty sure that's a typo, and typoes like this shouldn't be redirects. Procyon117 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is looking like a No consensus situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete above in a reply to an argument, so I want to make a record of it here, after the relist, since that's when my comment was made. Don't double-count my !vote. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting wedge

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Over two years later, let's try this again: delete per WP:RSURPRISE as unmentioned and per WP:REDLINK per my comments in the previous discussion's nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ape Escape Racer

[edit]

An extremely novel misnomer of an unofficial translated name of a Japan-only game. Is orphaned, which makes its unnecessary existence even less meaningful. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Jesus

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jimboboii

[edit]

This seems to be one of the social media usernames of the perpetrator. Not mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to not being mentioned, it is misspelled from what he used. Extra useless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lanyard class

[edit]

I have been unable to find sources that describe the Professional–managerial class as the "lanyard class", which could also refer to other class groups. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrases are used as synonyms in the Niskanen Center piece I linked in the edit summary:
Graeber suggests that the electoral collapse of social-democratic and worker’s parties in Europe is a result of a “revolt of the caring classes” against the “proceduralism” of the “professional-managerial class” for whom “rules and regulations, flow charts, quality reviews, audits and PowerPoints that form the main substance of their working life inevitably color their view of politics or even morality.” [...] Warren’s “I have a plan for that!” slogan appeals mainly to the PowerPoint masters of the lanyard class, not the people who have to navigate the byzantine maze of their oversight.
and also in the Telegraph:
...managerial class getting tax perks to feel good in their shiny new electric vehicles, while the manual classes... It’s the lanyard-wearing boss class who are enjoying the perks of subsidised electric vehicles...
PK-WIKI (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

[edit]

Wikipedia:OPENLETTER

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

History of the United States (2008–2024)

[edit]

This redirect is the result of a bad page move but I don't think any CSD criteria applies to it. It is the result of an editor writing a new article that states that 2024 ushered a new era into American history. The article has now been moved to Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who would be using this as a search term? Is it generally considered that American history ended in 2024? Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mongola

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waliugi

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. waaaa cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counrty

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. possibly also ambiguous with county cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentuchy

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reccomend

[edit]

Ok this misspelling has like two errors. I don't think that's very plausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gardern

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephoscope

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Plausible phonetic misspelling BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible. A very small number of google hits, the top of which are about a podcast with this as a punny, but intentional name, a far more likely search attempt. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, google shows 5 sites using the spelling "stephoscope" incorrectly, and then the podcast - which has 4 reviews and 11 episodes, the last of which was published nearly 4 years ago. On other search engines it doesn't even appear on the first page. Stethoscope is far more likely to be the intended topic. BugGhost🦗👻 08:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stethoscope is far more likely to be the intended topic. Doubtful. It's a reasonably common word, sounds different, and as I just noted, has a very small number of google hits, demonstrating implausibility (also note a whopping 0 occurrences in the ngrams corpora -- plausible misspellings usually show up there at least a little). Also note the creator of this has a history of making bad redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were 0 search engine results, then it would demonstrate implausibility. The fact there are results shows that it is a mistake people make. For this (and the other spelling based RFD's we are disagreeing on) I'm not saying we should rename the article or anything, just that I can imagine someone misspelling the word this way. If someone types "stephoscope" into the search bar, they are without a doubt attempting to get to Stethoscope - if we delete this redirect we gain nothing, and if we keep it literally nothing bad happens. I think crusades to delete harmless redirects are a waste of everyone's time, and are far more annoying than the redirects themselves. There is no benefit to deleting this. BugGhost🦗👻 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monterrey La Raza (current)

[edit]

Outdated title. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This is the former title of the page and may have been accurate from when it was created (in 2006, interestingly, when there was talk of this team being created) to when the team folded in 2010, but it's still an outdated one. Regardless, for some reason, the redirect still seems to be getting a surprisingly high number of pageviews (like 61 last year and 79 this year). Regards, SONIC678 06:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was still linked to a few pages, but I updated those redirects. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Relable sources

[edit]

Unlikely misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIMRED

[edit]

Unlikely misspelling created due to an incoming link that probably should have just been corrected rather than having this redirect created. Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pauletta Brupbakher

[edit]

Double typo, unlikely search term, originated from a Wikidata error apparently Fram (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double error (on my part): turns out it wasn't a wikidata error, but rather the spelling of her name transliterated from Russian. Since she was Russian (ish), it makes sense that we had it that way originally. I've fixed the Wikidata item and added the Russian spelling to the article now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racially motivated violence

[edit]

Only four articles currently make use of this redirect. In all four cases, "hate crime" would be a more appropriate target than "ethnic conflict". So I suggest retargeting the redirect to "hate crime". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blind tasting

[edit]

Ambiguous name, as you can do a blind tasting of any alcohol. Plausible search terms for this include Blind wine tasting and Beer tasting#Blind tasting, so I suggest converting this into a DAB page. No evidence that wine tasting is the primary topic for this name. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Türkiye II

[edit]

This could refer to the B-team of the target club, but it isn't mentioned in that page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show Business (TV series)

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: resolved

Love Me (TV series)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Wikipedia:Picture turorial

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

It's time to d-d-d-d-duel

[edit]

There is no mention of "d-d" at the target article. Per the RCATs, this is apparently a related meme quotation, yet does not appear anywhere as written within the article. People looking for Yu-Gi-Oh! can reach the subject by typing Yugioh. Hyphenating between all the d's, just to reach an undiscussed meme subject, does not seem particularly useful or helpful here. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful to whom exactly? Personally, I search for a meme expecting information about a meme. 90% of people familiar with the meme know it's from Yu-Gi-Oh (or seems to be that way from [10], where it is discussed on KnowYourMeme). At the very least, readers expect to read about the thing they searched about. So readers get here thinking "oh so the meme is discussed on this page, great!" One then spends the next 50 thousand bytes searching and searching and nope, zero context, zero benefit. We don't need a redirect for "it's time to d-d-d-d-duel" if all it's going to imply is "this term is synonymous with the entire concept of the Yu-Gi-Oh! general topic article, with no specific section or anchor implied."
Memes are novel. I'm not surprised that people WANT to learn about it here, yet still not useful as a 1-to-1 redirect as it currently leaves people lost on a page without any information for their meme search term, and no mention of "meme" at Yu-Gi-Oh. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. This isn't simply a meme-- it's a direct quotation from the original opening sequence for the English dub of this specific anime, with most meme-ification of this quote simply extending the "d-d-d-d-d-d" stuttery part, or otherwise playing around with it and the Yu-Gi-Oh anime's characters in general. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's a meme then. I'm well aware of the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence in question, and the associated meme and its derivations. It's clearly not a "direct quotation", else this text (hyphens and all) would appear in the episode transcript here: [11]. Regardless, thank you for suggesting a more-related option. But it's still an unmentioned meme. How does this have any bearing on the likelihood of typing a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by "uel"? And all to end up at an article for the series where the meme being sought isn't mentioned, nor any of the meme-spellings? Even in the anime and the video you linked, they stutter like 9 times, so even that aspect isn't accurate within this redirect, and none of It's time to duel, It's time to d-duel, It's time to d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-duel (is nommed), It's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel exist, or It's time to dduel, It's time to ddduel, It's time to dddduel, or It's time to ddddduel for that matter. Past precedent has indicated that random hyphens inserted into words is not useful, obfuscates the terms that are actually spoken, and makes searches impractical. And at least for these precedent discussions, they were for quotes which appeared at the target, iirc (in an unmodified/natural state that is, I think). The quote is officially "it's time to duel". Anything beyond that, makes it a meme/meme version. Someone committing to the 5 ds/4 hyphens combination is deliberately typing in a meme into the search engine, so if maintained, the content should reflect that. Neither the real version nor any of the meme variations are covered at the new suggested target either, and Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!, btw. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding this hyphens, Hyphenation Expert; imo you have definitely earned the title of "expert in hyphenation" for this one 😌 lol.
    For that redirect, the title stutters 8 times, which that number happens to have a bit more basis in reality, compared to this one which stutters 4. (Side note, the edit summary for that redirect is... certainly interesting...). I'm hesitant to bundle these though, as the redirect you found here at least sounds a bit closer to what occurs in the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence, with the ~correct amount of 8 or 9 ds, so slightly more plausible. There may be a case for deletion there (no other du-du-dus exist), but I think the smaller scope and just one redirect here is fine for now. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conerve

[edit]

No mention of "conerve" at the target article. Possibly a portmanteau of "complex nerve"? But without a definition, is confusing. I'm getting mixed results when I type in "conerve" in search engines, which say something about a "conerve capsule"(?) (but are generally about being one letter off of "conserve"). In any case, without a mention, there is currently nothing suitable for incoming readers using this search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Luttrell

[edit]

No mention of "Cowboy" or "Luttrell" at the target article. Not a helpful redirect if we have no content on this supposed individual wrestler at the target article for the NWA. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 31

[edit]

The only reasoning for this appears to be "Java (specifically the java.util.Calendar class) allows dates such as February 0 (= January 31) and April 31 (= March 1)." The problem is that that particular class in Java seems to accept any integer for the date. I tested "April 366" which showed up as March 31 of the next year. The internet does say that there is a reference to "April 31" in the The Long Walk by Stephen King, but it is purposely supposed to be a fictional date, even within that universe. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the target mentions Excel, but doesn't get into the use of these nonstandard dates in formulas (it only mentions the weird 1900 problem). In Excel and programs like it, if you add one day to the last day of a month, it returns the first day of the following month. It doesn't recognize April 31 as a valid date if you write it in a cell directly, but April 30 + 1 = May 1. I'm not sure if that could fit into content in the article, or if it's more prominent than other uses that have been suggested here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. May 1 was the 2014 discussion outcome. But April 30 might be the likely sought-for page for users who simply forgot April's last date. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects

[edit]

Earth is, unsurprisingly, not the only "planet three". This is a highly ambiguous and fairly implausible search term. Ditto for the rest. Delete. Cremastra (u — c) 01:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the first one, keep the three others, there is no ambiguity, except in the first one.
21 Andromedae (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@21.Andromedae Why is only first one ambiguous? Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Planet three isn't the same as 3rd planet, and nobody calls Earth as planet three. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I have bundled "1st planet", "2nd planet", and "4th planet" in this discussion. Cremastra (u — c) 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Other planetary systems do exist, but none is so ingrained into popular knowledge as ours so that random people would be able to name all of its planets, and in order to boot. Right now and for a very long time in the future, "first", "second", "third" and "fourth" planet, said in isolation, will always mean implicitly "...of the Solar System". Cambalachero (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ordinal ones per Cambalachero. I'm unsure about Planet Three. Looking around there's definitely other uses for this term. There is a publisher (for example redlinked on Mad About Boys), an internet(?) company mentioned on .cx, and probably most notably Arthur C. Clarke's "Report on Planet Three And Other Speculations". In that case it clearly is referring to the Earth. Given it is only a partial title match and given there's no actual articles about any of these things I very weakly lean keep but don't have a strong objection to deletion or targeting somewhere else. A7V2 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. It is not inherently obvious that a reader is intending to determine the order from the Sun. Maybe they are looking for an estimated time when each planet was actually created, or some other chronological construct. And even then, why this solar system? Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, mercury was not the first planet to exist. Earth was the first planet to be inhabited by humans. The gauge for determining a scale of "what planet is first" is WP:OR and these descriptions do not seem to be mentioned as "first planet" at the target articles of Mercury (planet) and etc, without the necessary context of "first planet away from the sun". Without the context, this is ambiguous. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last time I checked we're in this solar system so many of those planets are likely to be primary for us even if other planets exist in other solar systems but these as noted may be too ambiguous even in our solar system. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her Royal Hotness

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This designation is not mentioned at the subject. Redirect is confusing, misleading, ambiguous and undiscussed. People looking for this term are looking for encyclopedic coverage of such a buzzword "her royal hotness", which is not currently found at the page for Pippa Middleton nor anywhere on Wikipedia. This is a novel term, and hasn't ever been mentioned at the subject's article, since the last bout in 2020. No coverage of the phrase "her royal hotness" anywhere on Wikipedia, so this WP:Surprising non-RS term should be removed. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My !vote was previously based on personal experience of hearing this term generically applied to nearly any "hot girl", particularly those seen as "higher class", by peers. Google, on the other hand, makes it fairly clear that this is attested to refer to this one person, so extremely consistently it makes for an overwhelming WP:PTOPIC. No, it's not mentioned in the article, nor should it be, as the vast number of sources that use it so overwhelmingly often are not reliable... but redirects are not article content, and need not be held to the same sourcing or inclusion standards. This redirect will help users who encounter the term in the wild find out who is being referred to. Fieari (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not mentioned at the target, and apparently pretty ambiguous about whom it could refer to anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if WP:RSURPRISE applies, which it seems it currently does; in my experiences, if there's not a good reason to add a term to an article, it either doesn't apply or is some sort of combination of WP:NEO, WP:SEO and/or WP:OR, which we don't want here. Also, to respond to the struck vote above, if it's not mentioned, the redirect would continue to be a {{R without mention}}, which puts the redirect in a maintenance category prompting the redirect to eventually end up on RFD ... which is exactly what happened here, and there's no reason to repeat the same steps that were prompted by the same problem. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - searching for "her royal hotness" on various search engines returns many results for Pippa. Purposely omitting her from those results returns practically nothing: one novel by a not-well-known author, and a few non-notable shades of lipstick. Not really that ambiguous at all, and we're here to help readers find the information they're looking for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Site-specific Comedy Opera

[edit]

According to the internet "site-specific theatre refers to a theatre performance which is staged in a non-traditional space". This needs to be re-targetted, but I'm unsure where. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - If you're being specific enough to type this entire phrase, I don't think you'd be WP:ASTONISHed to end up at this target. I'm not sure we have better. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, definitely do not keep but open to retargeting as necessary. No mention of "site-specific" or "opera" at the target article, so people searching for this term would be misled by the promise of content on this term that we don't have. No mention of "Site-specific Comedy Opera" anywhere on Wikipedia, so honestly this should probably just be deleted as the RfD default (no valuable history being lost), but OP seems to think there could be another target possibility. I can't think of one so I say delete for now. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant retarget if there is a good target. If not, then deletion would be my !vote. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Dutch general election

[edit]

There is no election planned in 2025 Dajasj (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to Elections in the Netherlands#2023 general election. According to 2023 Dutch general election, that election was expected to take place in 2025 but was called early on short notice, so this is a very plausible search term. I've added a summary to the target article that explains this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would then be more sustainable to link to redirect to 2023 Dutch general election, because the section header will be changed after the next election (and we will have forgotten about it). Also avoids duplicating content.
    More generally I disagree with redirecting with a hypothetical situation, but in this specific case it is also ambiguous because 2025 could also refer to a hypothetical snap election after 2023 (if the cabinet fell today, that would be the earliest moment). Dajasj (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cabinet failing before the next expected election is different to the expected next election unexpectedly not happening. Sources regularly talk about the next expected election, so there will be sources from pre-July 2023 talking about the 2025 elections that people will see and search for information about. Sources since that date don't expect 2025 elections, they talk about 2028 elections in the expected manner. If elections do happen in 2025 then obviously this redirect will be correctly usurped by an article about those elections. That article will mention the circumstances and explain things for those who arrive looking for what became the 2023 election. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

三州府

[edit]

There's two possible targets for 三州府: Straits Settlements and Suong. 三州府 is an old alternative Chinese-language name Straits Settlements, and 三州府市 (三州府 + city) is the name historically and currently used by Chinese-speakers and Chinese Cambodians people for Suong. The Chinese Wikipedia has chosen to solve this with a disambiguation page zh:三州府, so this term seemingly cannot be tied very strongly to one article. I'm not seeing how we could create a local policy-compliant dab page. Given the very high bar needed to have a non-English redirect page, we should probably delete this. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cambodia is not a Chinese language subject. But the Straits Settlements are due to the high Chinese population of the region. Thus regardless of what Chinese Wikipedia does, on English Wikipedia, the only subject with affinity for Chinese is the Straits Settlements, and not Suong, Cambodia. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update I stand corrected on the status of Chinese in Suong, being that there is a large population of such in Suong; therefore I recommend that this page be disambiguated per WP:CJKV {{Chinese title disambiguation}} and create a WP:2DAB like that on Chinese Wikipedia because both locations have large Chinese populations and both locations have carried this Chinese name. ;; So either Keep as is and hatnote Suong, or disambiguate -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the ip editor. A hatnote can be added if really desired, but I don't think it is required. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, per the Chinese Wikipedia article for Suong, Cambodia, 80 per cent of the population in the city are of Chinese ethnicity, so the above rationale might not be valid. However, it doesn't appear to be cited properly (the current source does not provide such information). If there is some related reliable source found, then perhaps a dab, otherwise keep. Sun8908 Talk 15:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anecdotal evidence- I mean if we compare the length and detail of the zhWiki article to the Khmer article, I wouldn't be surprised if the statement that 80% of the population are Sino-Khmer turns out to be true. Baidu Baike(keeping in mind WP:BAIDU and all) also repeats the statistic, citing it to what looks to be an offline database. (@Sun8908, does it look obviously unreliable in this case?)
    But back to the matter at hand- Wiktionary lists the Cambodian city first, emphasizing that the usage of 三州府 is "historical". Again, uncited, but I googled and the Promote Mandarin Council (in Singapore) seemingly confirms this, writing that the name was used most in the early days. The Cantonese Wikipedia lists their (unsourced) article for the Straits Settlement under the name 三洲府, but zhWiki only mentions once that it's an unofficial name. Our own article doesn't mention the name at all. It's clearly not a clear-cut matter.
    When I google "三洲府", my own results are pretty evenly split between the city and the settlement, which I think is why the editors on zhWiki chose to make a dab page in the end. They seemed to have the opposite problem as us, actually, with their initial redirect pointing, for four years, to the article about Suong. I'm not suggesting we should follow them, I'm just pointing out that there is unlikely to be a dominant topic. I suppose if somebody wants to make a dab page, they could, I suppose? Three States is a direct translation, and already a dab page, but I don't think we really make dab pages for direct translations where the direct translation is not used in English. A dab for the direct transliteration might be better, if anybody wants to make one? I'm not convinced it would aid people trying to navigate the English Wikipedia, but I suppose it wouldn't be harmful. A hatnote could be a solution, but I'm not sure how useful non-English/Latin hatnotes for unofficial names are.
    On a personal note, this is why WP:RLOTE based on unofficial nicknames can be problematic- the predominant argument to keep is that Suong, Cambodia has no affinity with the Chinese language. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want you to note that we indeed have dab pages with Chinese characters as title. We could do that if it turns out there isn't a main article between the two entries. That being said, a main article should be decided with the likeliness that English speaker would more likely want to search. I think there are Chinese-language newspapers in Cambodia using that name to refer to the Cambodian city, so it might worth a dab. Sun8908 Talk 05:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I missed reading the reliability of the source on Baidu Baike. I am not familiar with the site but I cannot see a link for that citation. I cannot search any useful information about the database / centre by simply searching on Baidu or Google. (Note: there seems to be a lot of database with a similar name, I don't know which to look for) However, that citation seems to be used by a lot of articles on Baidu Baike. Unfortunately, only verified users can see the edit history, so I cannot get any further information from there. I don't feel like it is particularly useful as I cannot find information about the database / centre. Sun8908 Talk 11:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Licensing Letter

[edit]

Redirect title appears to be a company name that's loosely related? Not mentioned at target article, possible promotion LR.127 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like License Global that's mentioned in the article The Licensing Letter is a trade publication that covers the licensing industry. They used to publish their top brand lists from 2010 to 2018 (used here List of highest-grossing media franchises) and have been mentioned in reliable sources like The Hollywood Reporter. [23], The Morning Call [24],Chicago Tribune [25][26], Star Tribune [27] , among others. Timur9008 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Żwaniec

[edit]

This article exists at Polish Wikipedia - therefore, appears to be a translated name that's not significant to the target article. LR.127 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not a translated name, but a historical Polish name, as it was part of Poland for several centuries. The redirect is similar to many other towns, which were formerly part of Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania, Denmark, Germany, etc, but whose state affiliation has changed since, and there are articles in which the town is mentioned under its Polish name as a reference to the history of that period. Marcin 303 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative

[edit]

not mentioned at target article. Ironically, when searching this term on the internet, the article for Eco-socialism popped up. LR.127 (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manush Shah

[edit]

No point in this redirect, there is no much coverage about him in this page. he is mentioned in some events. should be deleted until an actual article is made. Sports2021 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

[edit]

Football in American Samoa

[edit]

The sport of "football" in American Samoa typically refers to American Football, which has much greater participation among American Samoans than does Association Football. I propose that this be either retargeted to American Football in American Samoa, or that a dab page be created between the two. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McBride

[edit]

Pre-notability deadname not mentioned in article. It's unlikely anyone knows of her by this name but not her current name. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Name not mentioned at target, and likely will never be per MOS:DEADNAME.
-insert valid name here- (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Busy2

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: G5 speedy deleted by User:Amortias

Template:Wikipedia ads single

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

47th president

[edit]

Ambiguous. 47th President of the United States already exists. MSMST1543 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matsubara dialect

[edit]

No mention in target article. Google search pulls little results bar city existence and being a Japanese dialect. Blethering Scot 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're called dialects (方言), they're actually Ryukyuan dialects, and not part of Japanese (see Japanese dialects). As for the existence of the Matsubara dialect, there are some information about the pitch accent data from a quick search:
https://doi.org/10.15002/00012659
I wonder what else could be the criteria. Chuterix (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nesebu dialect

[edit]

No mention in target article. No google hits on dialect, except for place existing. Blethering Scot 21:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Early Netherlandish painters

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

List of Greek words with English derivatives

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

The target is not a list of Greek words. The target is about English words, and not in a list. People searching for such a list would not find it at the target article, and with the preference of "greek words" being used first, the desire is for an article centralized around Greek words, which is not available. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note for those interested in WP nostalgia, this has 2001 history. Honestly, one of the strangest page histories I've seen around. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The target contains multiple lists of Greek words, so that part of the nomination is incorrect. Any list of English words of Greek origin that notes the original Greek word (as this does) is necessarily also a list of Greek words with English derivatives. The only issue is that the lists are organised by the English word rather than the Greek word. Does that make this misleading or otherwise not useful? I don't think so, but if a better target is available somewhere then it should be retargetted there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Interlingue periodicals

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of molecules by year of discovery

[edit]

The target list of molecules has no mention of a "year of discovery". Is currently a misleading redirect as this cannot be sorted for in the target article's current state. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neverwinter Nights characters

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

There is no such "list of characters" at the target article. The only character that is EVER mentioned at the target, is the unnamed "player character", and one mention of a "King of Shadows" in passing. Was created as a result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters AfD. Nevertheless, this is not a helpful redirect in its current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and restore the content underneath (deleted edits from prior to 2016) so that a proper character list can be created at the target article. 2016 is the bad old days when non-notable stuff was deleted before redirection, even though ATD policy was still the same, we didn't always do it right. Also, naming convention is pretty standard--if you're cleaning up problematic/confusing redirects, this ain't one of them. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreeing with Clemens somewhat. While the list itself is very unlikely to ever be revived, it serves as a record and and helps link to the AfD discussion that took place, which also has a list of potential sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll reproduce here what I wrote on my talk page: The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters was to delete and redirect, not only to redirect. Undeleting the deleted content would be contrary to the AfD outcome. It would need overturning the AfD closure, which would need to be done at DRV, not here. What's more, I can't even find deleted content to undelete. The deletion log indicates some sort of technical issue in 2016. Sandstein 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this should be kept: a) For historical reasons. b) It's just the next best thing we have. There are hits, an people are redirected there, showing what little we have and that we don't have a separate article. c) That's where new content would be added. And there is such content! I can't say if there's enough to establish notability and could change the outcome in a deletion review, but there's more than during the time of the deletion discussion. Examples would be his Kotaku article or this book, p. 20-21. I'd like to add such commentary, but I have too much on my plate already. Daranios (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore the content under the redirect, as per Jclemens; the contents of the old list are now at User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters so they can be moved back to article space. A short list can be merged into the main article until it can be spun back out again. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear to me how this got to my userspace. 2016 was after I'd was no longer an admin. Did I request restoration in the past and then forgot about it, or did someone just do this? Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have asked me to do that as I was still an admin at that time. BOZ (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an old redirect with history, and I honestly believe said history should be restored if possible, even if only to the history of this redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This redirect is not old (2016 from a recent-ish AfD), and does not contain any valuable history. This RfD turnout is quite surprising all within a few minutes tbh. There is still NO characters at the target article, so the redirect is still misleading and this has not been remedied. All the history is in userspace which can be reinstated when it is ready. Does not need a misleading "list" redirect in the meantime. Sources can be copied to the Neverwinter Nights talk page, or grabbed from the AfD directly. We don't do redirects for the "next best thing we have", when we actually have nothing. The only thing that needed to be true for this redirect was to have "characters listed", and Neverwinter Nights does not even manage this in its current state. Articles don't need to exist as a redirect just to indicate where content "should" be added. In fact the opposite is true per WP:REDYES. There is no such content on Wikipedia for this topic at this moment. The only possibility would be to delete List of Neverwinter Nights characters (the replacement created by Sandstein), and move in the material from User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters to the same title, if consensus indicates material should be held here. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    8 years is not old? I understand it's not from the 200x's, but 8 years is still a pretty long time... Fieari (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom., there is no list. The redirect is somewhat misleading and not helpful. Neverwinter Nights is the obvious search term, and if someone did, for some reason, search on this full name they would be better served with this list of results [28] rather than being jumped to a page that has no list. A case of a redirect actually making things worse. Old content is userfied and can be developed, so that consideration is moot. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, if without prejudice to recreating if usable sources are found. list not present. i think misleading readers would do more harm than losing track of an afd thread in a mainspace page's edit history. even then, deletion would most likely link people attempting to recreate it to this discussion, which in turn links to that discussion, so... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do redirects need sources? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it refers to sources at the target article, to substantiate a mention of multiple characters and allow readers to receive sourced content, when it is specified in the search bar (via this redirect) that the reader SPECIFICALLY wants a "list of characters", one that we don't have anywhere in mainspace, nor any sources for. Redirects do need to be "reliably sourceable", because all material in mainspace must be verifiable, and redirects are material, and redirects are in mainspace. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should indeed have a list of characters at the target, but the content is already available even if not in that page currently. No, redirects don't need to be reliably sourced, per WP:RPURPOSE. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RPURPOSE is a guideline; WP:V is policy. Redirects too must be verifiable. Alternate spellings can be verified by WP:COMMONSENSE. What reason-for-maintaining bullet point does this redirect (a redirect indicating a "list of characters") meet on WP:RPURPOSE? Utopes (talk / cont) 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since COMMONSENSE can satisfy V, then, V's not really an issue, is it? Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i said i'd have no prejudice against recreation if sources could be found cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 10:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't explain why deleting a redirect to a notable work of fiction would be influenced in any way by sourcing--presumably, non-primary sourcing--for a set of elements that meet WP:CSC clause 2. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are secondary sources out there which would allow to include some commentary on characters as a group and individually into the target, but which have not yet been employed. Like [29] or [30]. Or, from a very different angle, an analytical comment on player characters on Dungeons, Dragons, and Digital Denizens, p. 20-21. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now included a rudimentary listing of characters in the Reception section, with potential for expansion based on said secondary sources, which I hope solves the gravest misgivings of Utopes and cogsan. Based on this I'd argue for the inclusion of the old, userfied page into the history of the redirect, as it could be used as a basis to search for more secondary sources, if someone should desire to do so. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think some examples in the reception section would count as enough to warrant a list redirect, so i guess my vote stays for the moment, with equally little prejudice against recreation cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan: So what in your view is still lacking for such a redirect to be justified? Number of characters? Description/commentary? Presentation in bulletpoint form or some such? Daranios (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what i think is missing is a list. "list of knives" probably shouldn't link to an article that only mentions santoku and bread knives, as an example. also as an example, characters of deltarune and that other game doesn't mention every character (where's lemon bread?), but it does have a good handful
so yeah, "number of characters" is the closest to my answer among the options provided, and if reliable sources only seem to cover three of them in any level of detail, i'd say press the big ol' return to red button cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan: Thanks. WP:RETURNTORED starts with "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article". It might, but though it pains me to say, the last AfD dedided that it did not have the potential to be expandied into its own article then. So do you still not like the redirect even though to my knowledge there is no other article which would cover even the four/five characters we have at the target now? Or to look at it from the other direction, what would be the number for characters you would see as the minimum for an embedded list to not want to delete our redirect? Daranios (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem here? Red link or redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD by finding sources that allow a new list article to be written, then you can just do that! Retaining this redirect doesn't help. The redirect does not have the old article history, so that argument for keeping it is moot. The old article history is available and userfied, so you have that. You are arguing like this is AfD but the only consideration is whether this is a useful redirect. On that score, it clearly isn't. There are at least nine articles that show up in search if you look for Neverwinter Nights [31]. Now if someone is looking for a list of Neverwinter nights characters, the redirect chooses to send them to one of these pages and ignore the others. The reader is taken to a page that does not list the characters, and does not meet their information requirement. If anyone were actually interested in all of the characters, they are better off seeing all nine articles listed, which will give them a fuller picture, rather than being taken to a page that does not answer their information requirement but pretends to. I just do not see what the benefit is of retaining a redirect that has no history and no utility. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the AfD which made this a redirect in the first place. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leedsshire

[edit]

Non plausible search term. Blethering Scot 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future Survivor seasons

[edit]

No mention of the 49th or 50th season at the target and, based on the lead, the series is currently only renewed up until the 48th season. As such, the redirects are misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Unnecessary and too soon. Season 48 hasn’t even debuted yet. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally WP:TOOSOON. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future United States House of Representatives elections

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target at all. The farthest away election mentioned in 2028, making the redirects misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon. Besides, 2030 isn't even an applicable election- its either 2028 or 2032.removed as I might be wrong Can be mistaken as a hoax ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 17:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karhusaari (island)

[edit]

Misleading redirect. There are several islands named Karhusaari in Finland, the island in Angelniemi is not the only one and probably the most notable either. The redirect had two incoming links, neither of which was actually about the island in Angelniemi: one was for an island in Espoo and the other for an island in Kuopio. I removed the wikilinks from both. This redirect should be deleted until we have an actual article about at least some island named Karhusaari. JIP | Talk 12:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this redirect when reviewing Karhusaari (disambiguation) because of the line in the article Angelniemi: "Other isles of Angelniemi are Angelansaari, Kokkilansaari, Pikkusaari and Karhusaari". If there are other islands then fine: mention them in the appropriate article and disambiguate at Karhusaari (disambiguation) to where this redirect should point. Otherwise, we actually do "have an actual article about at least some island named Karhusaari". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC) (Not an expert in Finland but once had a lovely trip to Helsinki)[reply]

Cricoarytenoid

[edit]

There is also Cricoarytenoid joint and Cricoarytenoid ligament. This could be a set index like Arytenoid. 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presume good faith

[edit]

JPerez90, there's a reason we don't generally make these. See also The five pillars and The Manual of Style. Remsense ‥ 论 05:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chalcolithic cultures of China

[edit]

No such list of Chalcolithic cultures exists at the target. This does not appear to be a subject that is discussed on Wikipedia at this time. Previously existed as a list with one entry.

This title may be able to be salvaged if the list of Neolithic cultures is expanded to include Chalcolithic cultures. However, searching for an article about a "Copper Age list" and being sent to an article about a "Stone Age list" does not seem generally helpful in a vacuum, and would be confusing to readers if there is no indication or hatnote about why they ended up here (that there may not have been enough content to substantiate an individual page for Chalcolithic). Utopes (talk / cont) 00:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2041 Ryder Cup

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. No relevant info there, making this redirect misleading. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

[edit]

Barangay 79

[edit]

There are at least 3 Barangay 79s, and this one in Caloocan is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 22:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as there's no particular info on this particular barangay. Disambiguation is inappropriate since all the disambiguated titles (if they existed) should still be deleted for the same reason. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daesh Tunisia

[edit]

I was highly confused by this redirect, and my external searching of "Daesh Tunisia" led me to uncover that apparently it is the "name of an invasive crustacean", per [32]. This blue crab might be invading Tunisia, but what it is ALSO invading is this article which has nothing to do with the subject. No mention of "daesh", "crab", "crustacean", or even "blue" at the target article. People looking for information on this blue crab would be very confused by the topic of Ansar al-Sharia, and if these two DO have a correlation, such a correlation is unclear with zero mention. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daesh is ISIS. This redirect is calling them Tunisian ISIS. They were closer to Al-Qaeda.
This name actually does get used in RS [33], but for Jund Al Khilafa-Tunisia or JAK-T, which we do not have a page on. We do have a page on the Algerian one though PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite surprised we do not have a page on JAK-T PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to have an article created. Mooonswimmer 04:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 22:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daesh is what the Arab world calls ISIS. The Office of Foreign Assets Control, UN Security Council, US Department of State, and European Union all mention "Daesh Tunisia" as an alias of JAK-T. Mooonswimmer 04:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electrotechnology

[edit]

According to the brief page history of this WP:DICDEF, electrotechnology is not simply "electrical engineering". From my external searches of this term, I'm getting mixed results. The question then becomes... what would be the best location to target this term? Because the term "electrotechnology" is not written anywhere at the target. It seems to be a valid question if the two terms are "apparently not 1:1 synonyms". But if they are synonyms, then this, too, should probs be indicated somewhere, and I feel something about "electrotechnology" could be added to the article to substantiate the redirect in that case. This would answer the question for people who use an "electrotechnology" search term to navigate Wikipedia, instead of seeking out the very long article on all of electrical engineering. As it happens, Electrical engineering technology also exists as an entirely different article. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 22:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox (channel)

[edit]

Looking at the page histories of both titles, the contents using the redirect title here at RFD later evolved to its current target. I'm listing this here for a fresh discussion of its either possible deletion or re-targeting/redirection. Intrisit (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grooving

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Starlow

[edit]

Starlow debuted in this game, but she appears in later entries too. She doesn't have an entry on List of Mario franchise characters though. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep in absence of that entry, like popple (nintendo) redirecting to superstar saga when he was also in dream team cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 21:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge the page

[edit]

Very implausible for an WP:XNR TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rediretc

[edit]

Very implausible typo on top of the fact that it's in project space. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirct

[edit]

Slightly plausible error, but it's in project space. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested Articles/Business and economics/Companies

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

Wikipedia:REVERET

[edit]

This misspelling already appears to be implausible, but it's is in project space so it's even less likely to get used. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RSreliable sources

[edit]

Appears to be another linking error. Looking at the page links, it appears to be a fairly common error where someone doesn't type "|" between RS and reliable sources. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chocottone

[edit]

chocotone (one t) is a brazilian recipe featuring chocolate. no idea what a brazil is, but i hear it's relatively popular there. still unmentioned, though cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivolja

[edit]

swedish for olive oil. target seems to have no particular affinity with sweden cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost pepper (version 2)

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: resolved. This was an artifact left over from when Anthony Appleyard moved Bhut jolokia to Ghost pepper back in 2020. I've moved the edit history back under Bhut jolokia, which essentially completes the WP:ROBIN. -- Tavix (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Reilly (actor)

[edit]

See recently closed RM. No primary topic; redirect to dab. 162 etc. (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granatawerfer

[edit]

"granatwerfer" (from granate and werfer) is a plausible, if apparently archaic name for mortar launchers (though i'd associate it more with grenade launchers). "granatawerfer" is not a word, because granata is italian for grenade. opinions on its plausibility as a misspelling or something else i might have missed? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should mention that i would create granatwerfer as a redirect to grenade launcher, but there are articles for three separate granatwerfer, which astute eyes may realize are all mortars, so i'll do it after this discussion closes to see where it should target. then again, judging by the articles' current states, grenade launchers and mortars might not have any particular affinity for germany in the first place. how complicated~ cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Granatwerfer is reasonable as either a redirect to mortar, or a disambig. Grantawerfer is a typo or else a literary weapon used across the dining tables of Islington and Trumpington.Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Lavender

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target in any capacity. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any relevance in the redirect, as Ray Lavender was not a notable figure while contracted as an artist of KonLive Distribution. He released 4 singles, none of which of was any relevance even with a T-Pain feature. His time was so brief at the label that most people are unaware that he was on the label, and was one of the main factors for my omission of his name in the former artists section. Eder Srld (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23th Senate of Puerto Rico

[edit]

Delete This was created by an editor who made a typo and accidentally created this redirect, and subsequently used by an editor three times who thought the correct word is 23th instead of 23rd, I have fixed all three occurrences of 23th Senate of Puerto Rico into 23rd Senate of Puerto Rico in Wikipedia and this redirect can be safely deleted. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:HESD

[edit]

Manual of Style does not need its own pseudo-namespace Hexware (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a pseudo-namespace. Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS: does have its own psuedo namespace it's used all the time Cyber the tiger (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of creating unnecessary redirects, maybe use your time in other ways. Wikipedia:Namespace, "MOS" is not a pseudo-namespace, but a real one recently created. Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MOSSECTIONHEADINGS

[edit]

Unused short redirect; Correct form would be to WP:MOS#Section_Headings Hexware (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomfiness

[edit]

Not a word Hexware (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomfort

[edit]

Not a word Hexware (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Touota

[edit]

Unlikely typo Hexware (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What WP is not

[edit]

Short redirects to WP:xyz are written without spaces, and in all caps Hexware (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. "wp:" automatically gets converted to "wikipedia:" for the purposes of literally anything besides typing and reading, so this one is fine in that area. could make an argument for the use of the abbreviation being a little implausible, but i'm not feeling it to be honest
also, see not-full-caps equivalents of actual short redirects, like wp:brd, wp:mos, and wp:th, and notice that despite what i typed, they got automatically converted to "wikipedia:" when linking cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Pivasso

[edit]

Unlikely typo Hexware (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished basement

[edit]

Unnecessary redirect Hexware (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ac/DC

[edit]

Unnecessary redirect; When would a user have AC lowercased and DC uppercased? Hexware (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an entire AC/DC (disambiguation) ;; and the non-music electrical topic; the war of the currents between Tesla and Edison -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Web

[edit]

Unnecessary redirect; More likely misspelling would be missing the apostrophe Hexware (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from opposites

[edit]

Unnecessary/unused redirect; Antonym is the correct terminology Hexware (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep it is describing the situation properly, and not everyone would have the word "antonym" floating in the front of their minds; which could let people search for the Rcat type through its redirect -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for the rather pedantic reason of the fact that an RCAT template cannot be in both a redirect and its target since RCAT templates are intended to be only on redirects, thus the plural caused by the "s" in this title could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie.

[edit]

These are the first two lines of this song, the lyrics of which are no longer mentioned at the target. No indication on why this song over any other song should contain its first two sentences as redirects, as such an act would be an exception and not the norm. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the title of the target IS present in the redirect, which precludes any accusation of the lyrics searched not being present in the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor

[edit]

"Vor der" not mentioned at the target article. Unlikely search term because pages about songs tend to be located at an article that matches their title, not this. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per other discussions above and below. These are the first lyrics to this song, which someone might remember without retaining the title, so it's potentially helpful for people searching for the song in question. Regards, SONIC678 16:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition

[edit]

The target page can be reached after the first three words. The rest of this lyric is not mentioned at the target page, and someone specifying all this information instead of stopping at "police and thieves" is likely looking for particular information related to this quote; information that we do not contain anywhere on Wikipedia. Zero mentions across the whole site. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the title of the target IS present in the redirect, which precludes any accusation of the lyrics searched not being present in the article. The rest is in the domain of WP:CHEAP. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enteractive

[edit]

unmentioned, results gave me some unrelated brand that does Things™. incoming links seem to imply that it's a developer that worked under ljn maybe probably, but that's all the info i got cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xenusia

[edit]

Xenusia is a subgroup of Lobopodia, it shouldn’t be redirected to the parent clade. Plus, it’s widely used enough to warrant a page. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh uh

[edit]

Not mentioned in article. Nuh-uh. Not true. Not at all. or the sound it makes usually indicates no. Blethering Scot 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henț River

[edit]

"Hent" is not mentioned at the target article. It is mentioned as a part of Săcuieu (river), as well, and should be pointed at a location where such a river is discussed. However, the target appears as if it may be ambiguous, and the redirect has history. Unsure what to do here. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Yurasov

[edit]

No reference to Sergey in article. Google searches show Sergey but its to another Yurasov. Blethering Scot 14:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucishaniids

[edit]

This page shouldn’t be redirected; the reason given is “monotypic taxon”, yet the group was designed to join Hallucigeniidae and Luolishaniidae, therefore it by definition cannot be monotypic. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MagneLine

[edit]

unnotable brand. results gave me some type of medicine with the same name and magnezone, but not the flavor of mortar mentioned in the pre-blar history cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The product appears to still be available, albeit named "Magne Line" (with a space) and, through a series of mergers, is now owned by a company called Maedakosen. However, as that company doesn't have a WP article, the redirect seems pretty useless and I !vote for deletion. MarcGarver (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mileu Cyrus

[edit]

Unlikely error. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Are we seriously gonna make a redirect for every keyboard slip-up? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsylor Swift

[edit]

Unlikely error. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Sqift

[edit]

Unlikely error, not every adjacent key typo needs a redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BASTARD

[edit]

This appears to be a redirect from Wikipedia space to a former administrator's userspace. I'm generally okay with lowbrow hijinks in userspace, but IMHO this language is inappropriate as a page title in Wikipediaspace (which does not exist to please admins past or present). Sorry if I'm whizzing in someone's private pool, but this is an inappropriate word for Wikipedia to use for any person, not to mention lack of any reason to link WP space to userspace in such a way. I'd be happy to be incorrect in this case, but I hope I'm acting in the interest of the pedia. BusterD (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to meeeeee
just kidding, delete. there may be some unambiguous, probably useful use for a redirect like this someday, but that day doesn't seem to be today, or any day before this one, or any day within this year. maybe some mos guide on blps of bastard children? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because inappropriate. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picric acid (homeopathic remedy)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rage game

[edit]

There is a genre of game out there called "rage game" in which their main objective is to make the players rage. Notable examples include Getting Over It and A Difficult Game About Climbing. Not sure if the genre is really notable or not, but there are at least two examples I can think off of the top of my head (and those were just limited to the notable ones!). Maybe add a hatnote for the video game called "Rage", which is the current redirect. Someone-123-321 (I contribute) 08:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 4

[edit]

September 31

[edit]

No mention of September 31 in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone unify it with #April 31? Web-julio (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhol (Kirat)

[edit]

This is not a helpful disambiguator, as a "Kirat" variant is not discussed at the target article, so people specifying that they desire a "Kirat" form of the Dhol drum, would not receive it when they search for this title. Contains history. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Spaniel

[edit]

This character has no confirmed last name, and this isn't even the right dog breed. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google shows me that this name is in widespread use amongst fans, even amongst fans who say that they aren't sure whether she's a Cocker Spaniel or a Poodle. It's not just one corner of fandom, it crosses multiple different social media sites, fan sites, art sites, forums, and so on, and also it crosses over into the furry-sphere which is related but distinct from Star Fox fandom. It's certainly not an official name as far as I can tell, but the extreme widespread nature of this name being assigned to this character, rightly or wrongly, makes it a pretty plausible search. As a navigational aid, this will get a searcher to the right place where we have information on the character being referred to. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert the Android Pig

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Greater Luxembourg

[edit]

Delete all three.Retarget to Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War. This Euroregion is never referred to as "Greater Luxembourg". РоманЖ (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly redirect to Luxembourg. The thing very definitely exists, see, for example [39] (there are dozens of solid peer-reviewed works using the term). According to this source, the Greater Luxembourg includes "partly derelict French periphery benefiting from the economic spillover of Luxembourg". Having once made an (accidental) stop there, I can vouch for the description. Whether this description matches the Greater Region of SaarLorLux, I do not know (the SaarLorLux seems much larger than what the works describing the Greater Luxembourg imply). Викидим (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War for some historical background of the term. Викидим (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per MPGuy. This is a solution in search of a problem. Whether or not strictly accurate, the term "Greater Region of Luxembourg" is widely used in reliable published academic source (1, 2). As for "Greater Luxembourg", this is also a commonly used term. Ernst & Young offer accountancy services for for "Greater Luxembourg" (3). So too does the UN (4) and the Lux government (5, "Given the important role of Luxembourg in the ‘greater Luxembourg’ labour market, the department could usefully explore funding opportunities in neighbouring regions..."). This is a very small selection. Where exactly is the problem with the current situation? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it seems like a consensus to Keep, some participants are also saying they'd be okay with Retargeting so I'm going to relist this discussion to come to a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mabe Village

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada bunting

[edit]

I could be wrong, but, based on this source from The Canadian Encyclopedia, this is an ambiguous term. I also do not see it mentioned at the target in any capacity. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of nonvoilence

[edit]

Misspelling and seemingly an undue epithet for redirection. Remsense ‥ 论 21:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vote for deletion

[edit]

AFD is a discussion, not a vote. TheWikipede (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Italian

[edit]

Ambiguous with Albanians in Italy—I recommend disambiguating. Cremastra (u — c) 20:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This combination of two different names for the character, combined by the / character, is a very unlikely search term. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's particularly odd is that apparently, most first-party sources consider "Dark Link" and "Shadow Link" two different subjects/characters, though Wikipedia currently doesn't. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftmas

[edit]

Delete per WP:RSURPRISE considering the term is unmentioned and the target section does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh come on, it's barely november
delete per nom cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Swifties#Relationship with Swift. The term is mentioned there. Could see a reasonable case to develop a little info about it at Cultural impact of Taylor Swift given some coverage in sources[40] and then subsequently retarget. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party in the UDA

[edit]

Another unlikely misspelling since 3 words have to be typed correctly before getting to the misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party in the YSA

[edit]

Borderline unlikely WP:SEO-ish misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooze-A-Koopa

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cruel summer

[edit]

Also a line in Cruel Summer (Bananarama song). No reason why one should be preferred over the other. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MoMA The Museum of Modern Art

[edit]

Unlikely redirect due to redundancy: Acronym at the beginning, then breaking down the acronym after the acronym. Reader would just ... type the acronym or the name, not both. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dpn delete per nom cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is how they style themselves on their social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Flickr) making this a very plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partyintheusa

[edit]

Unlikely lack of spaces. This redirect was created this year; such redirects are no longer technically necessary since the software that runs Wikipedia no longer requires using camel case titles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is the hashtag spelling of the song, missing the hashmark, which is technically impossible on pagenames. Whether we should keep such around or not is a different matter. #partyintheusa or #PartyInTheUSA -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partu in the USA

[edit]

Unlikely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota CNa

[edit]

Very unlikely phonetic misspelling, especially considering all the letters in the phonetic aren't the same case. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage truxk

[edit]

Typing the entire first word correctly, then somehow mistyping the second word, especially considering that Truxk has never existed, seems unlikely and WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, and maybe trout the creator or something. they've made a lot of indiscriminate typo redirects, wowie cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPNFCC

[edit]

Malformed shortcut missing the colon which makes it a cross namespace redirect as it is not in the Wikipedia namespace. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:N F C C

[edit]

Improper shortcut, shortcuts aren't supposed to have spaces like this. Implausible someone would type this instead of just WP:NFCC. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded pun

[edit]

unmentioned, target section no longer exists, results gave me puns embedded on things and ai slop cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest form of humor

[edit]

entirely correct!! term mentioned once in passing, though, and results seem to be torn between puns, sarcasm (a close second, possibly tied with blp vandalism), and wit (though some refer to wit as the highest form) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should mention. if not deleted, i'll be creating lowest form of humour to accompany it. just not gonna do it now because that'd require the effort of nominating it here, clumping them together, and then it might just get deleted anyway
should also mention that i'm not necessarily voting to delete, as i'm not good enough at dealing with lines that have gone into inspirational quote limbo to opine beyond "this might not be the right target tbh" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ハンマーブロス

[edit]

Not helpful for the English encyclopedia. Appears to refer to the Hammer Bros. antagonists in the Mario franchise. TNstingray (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak refine to #enemy characters. yeah, that refers to hammer bros. mario is a japanese franchise (really japanese, even, have you seen how many tanuki they can cram into a single game?), so japanese redirects are fine and dandy, though this one isn't mentioned, so meh cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ジュゲム

[edit]

Unhelpful for the English encyclopedia, and I don't see a connection to the Mario franchise. Google seems to point to Jugemu if consensus leads to this redirect being kept. TNstingray (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. that refers to the lakitu. the japanese name is mentioned (if in a footnote), and while ジュゲム (jugemu) refers to lakitus, 寿限無 (jugemu) refers to jugemu jugemu gokō-no surikire kaijarisuigyo-no suigyōmatsu unraimatsu furaimatsu kuunerutokoro-ni sumutokoro yaburakōji-no burakōji paipopaipo paipo-no shūringan shūringan-no gūrindai gūrindai-no ponpokopī-no ponpokonā-no chōkyūmei-no chōsuke, where lakitu gets its name from. get nippon egao hyakkei'd lol cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Laptop Studio 2

[edit]

SLS2 is a different product than SLS (1) Hexware (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

either keep in absence of an article for the sls2, or return to red so someone might create that article. i'm leaning towards the latter, but it's just around 15º, so weak delete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am creating the article, but still a rough draft the moment [41]. weak delete and return to red in the interim given lack of information about it on the SLS 1 page Anguswiki (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPT:NFCC

[edit]

This a new cross-namespace redirect that showed up on my Quarry query for cross-namespace redirects that I wanted to run by the regulars at RFD to determine whether it is appropriate. We have few redirects to Wikipedia talk pages. This was originally a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria but that page is a redirect itself so I corrected it to point to a genuine talk page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fântânele River (Mureș)

[edit]

Was redirected under a verifiability concern years ago. Fântânele River doesn't list it. Can't find it on either OSM or Google maps. Used to also have Kutas-patak redirected to it, but that's a waterway somewhere else. Looks like this was the result of some sort of a confusion. Joy (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled another version Fântânele River (Mureş).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think a Romanian/Romanian-speaking editor would be helpful here to determine whether this is actually a thing or not. Probably the result of some confusion with Fântânele, Mureș; the online source indicates that Fântânele is the name of a valley, but I'm not sure whether that translates to it being the name of a river. J947 ‡ edits 23:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found this river on an old hiking map, where it's called "V. Fîntînele" (old spelling using "î" instead of "â", in full it would be "Valea Fântânele"). It flows into the Mureș at Lunca Bradului. The same river is called "Obcina Ferigelor" on this hiking map, and it is mentioned as such in this listing, page 265 and in this source, page 137. According to the latter source, it is 7 km long and has a basin area of 23 km2. This document refers to the river as "pârâul Obcina Ferigilor (pr. Fântânel)". But, "obcină" means "ridge" and "vale" means "valley", so these names could also refer to the wider area the river flows in. Concluding, there is evidence that this river exists, but it doesn't seem very notable. The Mureș (river) article mentions "Obcina Ferigerilor" as a right tributary, so we could add "Fântânel" or "Valea Fântânele" as an alternative name there, or (re)create an article about the river. Markussep Talk 08:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party (Kosovo)

[edit]

No mention of "communist" at the target article. A misleading redirect to a target where the party in question is not discussed. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Cerveny

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

D'ni Restoration Council

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Diana Burnwood

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nomos Publishing House redirects

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Redirect from a academic journal and its alternative name that has been publishing since 1947 to the current publisher. Used as a reference on a few articles. Nobody (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @1AmNobody24: The academic journal is not mentioned at all at the target, it's misleading in its current state. Even if it's used elsewhere, people will be misled by the redirect when there's nothing at the target, not even a mention. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh I disagree. Even if it's not mentioned, common sense is still a thing. For example: A book that redirects to a person? I'd assume it's the author. A magazine or journal that redirects to a publishing company? Obviously it's the publisher. Nobody (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @1AmNobody24: Common sense is a thing, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to redirect to places that offer absolutely no explanation whatsoever to the relevance. Common sense would be a lowercase version of the article's title. A lack of relevance or explanation at the target is a very frequent and normal reason for deletion. It's the same reason we delete, for instance, characters of shows where there's no mention of them at said target. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh The publisher can be of relevance. Some publishers have better Reputation than others, which, if the redirected journal is used as a reference for example, can influence the readers. I'm not saying this is the case here, just generally speaking. And while I agree that there are often deletions for lack of relevance or explanation. I don't think one should believe that unmentioned redirects always fit this criteria simply because they're unmentioned. Nobody (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Context is key, and there's no context at the target whatsoever in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many journals do they publish? If it's not an exorbitant amount, and if the count of 60 is accurate that's not too bad, I'd recommend just adding a list and keeping this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crazee Dayzee

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahatit

[edit]

This redirect doesn't make sense in Albanian language. It's akin to having a redirect like "Of the clock" in English — incorrect and misleading. If it were "Sahati," it would at least be in the nominative case ("The clock"), but it would still miss the essential "tower" element. I'm an Albanian speaker and I've already created another redirect in a better form (Kulla e Sahatit) so this one can be safely deleted I assume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klein Muçi (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World's deepest cave

[edit]

deepest cave in relation to what? from entrance to lowest point (article says it's veryovkina cave), from depth of the lowest point (article says nothing), or something else? originally redirected to velebit caves, which that article says is only one of the deepest systems. i don't think the current target works since it only gives relative answers (really, it only gives one answer disguised as half an answer), but i also don't think it would count as trivia. opinions? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of deepest caves - aiming at a list that is ordered by how deep they are seems more appropriate than targeting a specific cave, and definitely more helpful than targeting the general Cave article. We seem to do a similar thing for World's tallest building → List of tallest buildings BugGhost🦗👻 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mlawu ka Rarabe

[edit]

This redirects to Mlawu ka Rarabe's father, it seems unnecessary Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Useful for people looking for royal geneaologies. However, there are WP:RETURNTORED considerations. As there are no other biographical detail other than the mention of being the son. Ca talk to me! 12:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Factory (game developer)

[edit]

Extremely novel typo of the company's name expanded to a number of redirects. Not notable enough to deserve being redirected. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a reasonable alternative rendering of a company name with unorthodox spacing. One of the cited articles [42] even spell the name with a space. Ca talk to me! 12:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ca - I wouldn't call adding a space between two words "extremely novel", so the mistake seems very plausible to me. BugGhost🦗👻 17:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, I would rather only keep one of these redirects. The Co., Ltd. one definitely is unnecessary, and one of the first two redirects won't be cited much in articles anyway. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very likely alt/mispelling or if it were an older version of MOS:TM it would be the recommended form used on Wikipedia. And the text of the article itself uses "Co., Ltd." so that is also likely -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PKS 1402-012

[edit]

This belongs on the target list, but is just one of 8000, and isn't mentioned there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern countries

[edit]

Recently created and very vague. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without further context, these terms appear to be mainly used as synonyms in regard to their development. [43][44][45][46].
I suggest a {{redirect}} hatnote to nordic countries since they share the similar meanings, and I found one source that refers to the nordics as northern: [47] Ca talk to me! 12:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the below IP editor's comment, disambiguation may be the best answer. It is a vague, yet still oft-used term. Ca talk to me! 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Northern country and Southern country, these terms also refer to Northern Hemisphere countries and Southern Hemisphere countries geographically (ie. Central America, Caribbean, North Africa, South Asia, are in the Northern hemisphere), but we don't seem to have good targets for those subjects. That is distinctly different from the Global North and Global South. And there's the related term for Northern country being Western country/Western countries in geopolitics, which is distinct from Western Hemisphere countries geographically (ie. Europe is missing, Global South of South America is included). -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work is an honor

[edit]

Seemingly unmentioned at the target. Also could not pull anything obvious up with a general search. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Appears to be a common refrain posted on gulags. The first thing a prisoner would have seen on their arrival at Vorkuta was a sign that said: “Work in the USSR Is a Matter of Honor and Glory.”[48], The emphasis is on the victims of the Gulag; the authors of the exhibition give a clear answer to the sacrosanct question, "To what deity were these sacrifices made?": No deity was involved. In some cases, a large ceremonial portrait of Stalin—the system's main demiurge— appears above the photographs of construction sites and camps. One characteristic example is the Museum of Military and Labor Glory (Taiga, Kemerovo). The exhibition "Rehabilitation" occupies a separate hall: in the "red corner" (traditionally used for icons) hangs a ceremonial portrait of Stalin decorated with barbed wire next to the slogan "For us, work is an HONOR, a deed of valor and heroism." [49]
A mention could potientially added, although I will leave it for others to find out if it is WP:DUE. Ca talk to me! 12:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, “Work in the USSR Is a Matter of Honor and Glory” is a common slogan of Soviet GULAGs.
https://tadexprof.com/vorkuta-gulag/ NagisaEf (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Aprile (disambiguation)

[edit]

It simply ain’t disambiguating anything. Roasted (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are many characters of the same family that is named Jackie Aprile in the show, the page is not disambiguating anything. Was bot-created erroneously. Ca talk to me! 12:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:CSD#G14. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third bullet point of G14 is A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). since it's targeting a list, it isn't eligible for G14. There are multiple Jackie Apriles talked about on that page so seems close to correct. Probably not very useful but not sure if that's really enough to delete. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G14 doesn't apply in a technical sense, but this is confusing and not useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Elon Musk

[edit]

Didn't bother merging it with the other discussion because the other discussion is going to end early due to WP:G7 and this redirect is slightly less blatantly implausible than This is Elon Musk Tesla cofounder and CEO, even if it's still very implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an internet meme [50]. Not notable for mention in the main article. Readers following this redirect will be confused as the information they are looking for is not present. Delete Ca talk to me! 12:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is a meme. Your point is valid this might confuse some readers that may not know what the meme is. However most people that search this up knows what the meme is because no person that doesn't know what the meme is will most likely not search it up in that manor. Idek mann (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Idek mann (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx

[edit]

This is an R from merge. The history of this wallet ID is useful to preserve, but as a search term and as a helpful redirect it is neither of these things, especially so as the wallet ID is not mentioned at the subject, so there is zero indication what this string of 34 characters could possibly mean in relationship to the subject. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a sourced mention. Ca talk to me! 12:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeitsamt

[edit]

The term is never mentioned in the target article. Perhaps it should be retargeted to Arbeitsamt in occupied Poland or be a disambig? It is also not mentioned in de version of the target article, de:Arbeitsamt does not have a wiki article yet (it seems related to the Public employment service) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 23:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S-compact space

[edit]

This seems to be a different concept that is not described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is not a concept at all. If you look at the history for the S-compact space page, it was created by a bot in 2008, presumably because this bot automatically created such redirects because Σ-compact space also redirects to σ-compact space, and the bot converted the Greek letter to a Latin letter. Note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/S-compact_space that there are no Wikipedia articles making use of this redirect. It would also be very confusing for anyone to use "S-compact space" with the meaning of "sigma-compact". No mathematician would understand what it means, as it has no meaning. Since "σ-compact space" already has a variety of redirects from many other names that make sense and without using Greek letters for those who have difficulty typing those (like "Sigma-compact space", etc), it seems to me that the best course of action is to delete the redirect "S-compact space". PatrickR2 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe these redirects are typing aids. It's an error to imagine that someone wanting to access Σ-compact space will necessarily first think of Sigma-compact space. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep [as a typing aid] [Maybe not significant but on the other hand, supporting dab] S-compact is used as a short form of strong locally compact, as if it is a standard notation, in Gompa, Raghu R. “What is ‘Locally Compact’?” Pi Mu Epsilon Journal 9, no. 6 (1992): 390–92. [51] It is used to describe certain bitopologial spaces in an apparently unconnected way here. It also seems to have a different use in fuzzy measure theory. However unless we cover these uses on Wikipedia (we don't as far as I can tell) this is a valid redirect. If we did at this page we should use a hatnote for sigma, otherwise a dab page might be in order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Note that the article by Raghu is pretty idiosyncratic. Any undergraduate belonging (having belonged?) to the society can publish some writing there with their own notation. That does not make such notation notable. Pi Mu Epsilon Jouornal is not a peer reviewed journal and thus is not a reliable source. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Apart from the fact that bringing it up would seem to be an argument to retarget to Locally compact space#Formal definition (to which I just redirected strongly locally compact), not to keep.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that bringing up those other cases supports dab or retarget. However I did not consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate the strength of that support. For example I found another case of "S-compact space" where S is merely a place-holder, which I could discard. I didn't want to repeat myself, but I have added my motivation for keep to my !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    @1234qwer1234qwer4 Maybe a little off topic here, but why did you create a redirect from strongly locally compact, just based on the existence of an article in an undergraduate journal using that terminology? It is not because a random person introduced that terminology in a random journal that it should belong in Wikipedia. Additions to Wikipedia, at least for mathematics, should be based on notable facts. How do you justify this terminology is "notable"? Leaving this in wikipedia is also encouraging people to start using this non-notable terminology :-( PatrickR2 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PatrickR2, I based my redirect on the inclusion (not added by me) of the phrase in the Locally compact space article (as well as a web search confirming the usage of this phrase – I barely ever create redirects just based on something singular). The article, in turn, cites Steen & Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology, which is convincing enough to me to leave it there. I did not realise that article also cited the Pi Mu Epsilon article until now; it likely shouldn't, but it appears to be only used as a source for the logical relations and not any terminology. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep creating these links "just in case". This is a misguided approach. If and when someone needs to link to 'locally compact" from "strongly locally compact", they can create the redirect at that time. It helps no one to create all these redirects if no one is going to use them. This is just gnome work gone overboard. Sorry for the rant, but it's not the first time ... PatrickR2 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I've found at least two more, different "S-compact"s just looking through the arXiv, all fairly obscure, and none of which seem to have any existing coverage on Wikipedia (that I can find, at least). Thus any target would be misleading, including substituting "S" for sigma. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snapseed 2.22.412829873

[edit]

It would make sense to have a redirect for a particularly important software version, but that version (and its importance) would need to be mentioned in the target page. WP:NOTCHANGELOG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also would likely want to go to a section header / anchor, instead of simply Snapseed. In any case, delete as per WP:RETURNTORED; there may be important info on this topic, but it's not here, and a redlink is the best way to convey that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello nice people ;)... i made it probably when i saw EXIF and see Software used, so i click and reroute to what we had (the article) and probaly that is it. Of course i wont bother if this is changed. Normally i use reroute for cameras in EXIF (EXIF is "cameras fingerprint"). Reroute=redirect --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spacelike vector

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Cancellated

[edit]

"cancellated" means two different things, neither primarily associated with bones. "cancellous" is apparently more primarily associated with bones though, so that's neato cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceddin Deden

[edit]

Article now does not mention Ceddin Deden in any capacity anymore. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 contribs 11:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decco Bishop

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

KP2

[edit]

Implausible search term. Also pointing at incorrect target. Blethering Scot 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

[edit]

KP1

[edit]

Implausible search term. In addition KP1 is Katy Perry's second album, which makes target incorrect. Blethering Scot 23:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit, we're gonna fucking die

[edit]

Statement Pilot made. No mention in article, and lack of notable sources available. Blethering Scot 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to everything brought up by OP, this is also... incredibly vague. I'd first expect this to be a quote that shows up in practically every horror movie ever made. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Surprising

[edit]

Should probably have the same target for these two. As it happens, WP:SURPRISE and WP:SURPRISING have had differing targets for well over a decade. Is this a good thing? You tell me, although I'd wager not, as it's TRULY a WP:SURPRISE for which page you end up at between the two, all depending on the verb conjugation. I wouldn't expect all editors to be familiar about which goes where. :P Utopes (talk / cont) 23:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brrrt

[edit]

Redirect from sound that is made. No mention in article or notability and seems an implausible term. Blethering Scot 23:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. vague onomatopeia currently more associated with skibidi toilet or any variant of the "[thing] go brrr" meme. even if tiktok didn't exist, it would have to complete with other guns that shoot things fast cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as although it has other senses, the overwhelming majority of mentions on the internet appear to be to the GAU-8. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/brrrt-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-firing-sound ScribeYearling (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"E-SAF"

[edit]

Not a plausible search term. Already redirect of E SAF. Blethering Scot 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of charcters

[edit]

These redirects don't have as much history besides fixing double redirects and adding the misspelling template (and, in the Iliad one's case, surviving a speedy deletion nomination in 2012 because it was created in 2007), and they haven't gotten very many pageviews nowadays (correct me if I'm wrong, though). I'm not 100% sure "charcters" is a plausible misspelling of "characters," so I'm bringing them to RfD to discuss. My preference is deletion, but I'm open to other outcomes. Regards, SONIC678 22:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete all I am a person who would tag these as spelling errors. But they are not useful, with hardly any page hits. And searching Google only yields Wikipedia or its mirrors for these errors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unlikely and illformatted. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. While I think that "charcters" is a plausible misspelling, it probably doesn't help a significant number of readers since it applies (or would apply, if extended) to potentially hundreds of pages about radically different sets of charcters. Page views appear to bear this out (if there are exceptions, they don't appear in this nomination). Readers searching for particular charcters are more likely to find them by searching for the works in which they appear, thereby avoiding the misspelling entirely. P Aculeius (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per other arguments and nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Shedletsky

[edit]

Non Notable employee. Youtuber Roblox Blethering Scot 22:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search did not turn up potiential sources for a mention. Ca talk to me! 12:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Hub

[edit]

Strange redirect. Appears to be referring to https://www.biblehub.com/, which is linked to on Portal:Bible/Web resources. Delete. C F A 💬 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUE MEEE?

[edit]

Not mentioned in article. Non Notable lyric. Blethering Scot 22:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a lyric, it is a name of a diss track by Bia [52]. A mention should be added. Ca talk to me! 12:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sure its notable enough to even be mentioned.Blethering Scot 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EbonyPrince2K24

[edit]

No Mention in target article. Non Notable. Blethering Scot 22:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVV Heusden-Zolder

[edit]

Apparently this and the target are two different clubs, see User_talk:Abcmaxx#KVV_Heusden-Zolder. I am a bit confused because the interwikis seem to disagree? This needs to be untangled, and deleting this redirect is only part of the work. Ping @User:Abcmaxx for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endo (cannabis)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: now deleted

Ekaladerhan n'Izoduwa n'ovbie Ogiso

[edit]

Name is not used anywhere. C F A 💬 21:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Maksimova

[edit]

Cannot find any sources using this alternative name. C F A 💬 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cho-Island

[edit]

Not mentioned at target article; source linked in edit summary for this page's creation does not have this name either. LR.127 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per other arguments Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Rapes

[edit]

Implausible redirect LR.127 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per other arguments Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circlejerk subreddit

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a "genre" of subreddit at this point. Often communities, say, r/vexillology, will have a corresponding r/vexillologycirclejerk subreddit. The title is likely more in reference to the type of subreddit than the original r/circlejerk. ScribeYearling (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 in California

[edit]

Deletion. I believe that links to year articles should remain redlinks instead of redirects, so that we can better see which year articles still need to be created. Other reasons why this isn't a good redirect is that the target page contains no information about the redirect title (i.e. someone specifically searching for "1996 in California" is just met with links to other years they weren't interested in). HertzDonuts (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indy HeroClix (heroclix)

[edit]

Inappropriate DAB formatting by listing it both inside and outside the parentheses. Delete as unhelpful redirect. If kept, please redirect to List of HeroClix supplements#Main series. TNstingray (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, indeed, bring me to the page about a heroclix! Which one? The one that's a heroclix! This is a very implausible disambiguation attempt, and we don't need it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move the non-insignificant edit history to Indy Clix (which seems to be the real name per Google searches) and retartget to List of HeroClix supplements#Main series as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland

[edit]

We shouldn't start having project namespace redirects redirect to user's personal sandboxes. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handwriting expert

[edit]

I would think that the modern primary meaning of "handwriting expert" would be the person who scientifically examines handwriting to determine authorship, not the pseudoscientific person who analysis handwriting to divine personality characteristics. I am on the fence about whether this should be retargeted to Graphanalysis, or disambiguated. BD2412 T 16:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Fuller

[edit]

Delete: "Dana Fuller Ross" was a pseudonym not shortened to "Dana Fuller". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piruzān

[edit]

There is no mention of "Piruzan" in the article. The redirect is categorized as R from an incorrect name Pīrūzān, but Pīrūzān doesn't exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coramandal FC

[edit]

should be deleted until there is a list of associated football clubs in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chairpersons of the Telangana Legislative Council

[edit]

No such list present on the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PGC 2399018

[edit]

This galaxy is part of the target list, but it is one of 73,000 and isn't mentioned there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 13:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The west has fallen, billions must die

[edit]

This seems to be from an alt-right meme, but isn't mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting occurred in 2019, meme popped up in 2022. Don't think there will be a reference. Delete TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People might want to know about the origins of the meme. Keep --Uglytriangle999 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TeapotsOfDoom. Although the meme is indirectly connected to the subject of the article, it makes little sense to have this phrase redirect to this article. ScribeYearling (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web interfaces

[edit]

Delete redundant redirect since we already have Web interface Nuclearelement (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep and retarget to Web interface TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Web API along with Web interface and Web-interface. I probably should have checked whether web interface was a redirect or not. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web-interface

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Neo-mooris

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Neo-moors

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Çornosturuf

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kırıvçe

[edit]

Seems to be Turkish-style transliteration? Regardless, unmentioned at target, and searches have not helped elucidate the meaning of this redirect. Cremastra (u — c) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Elon Musk Tesla cofounder and CEO

[edit]

There is no need for redirects of random phrases. Killarnee (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no need for another one" is not a valid argument for a deletion. And just because the other redirect isn't listed for discussion or was reviewed doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible that it gets deleted too. I think in this case it would be appropriate to either keep both or delete both. Killarnee (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood Idek mann (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the creator's argument isn't valid, RfD and speedy delete are completely different processes. If the creator wants their redirect to be deleted, then so be it. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of zombie other films

[edit]

1) "List of [genre, element, etc.] films is a questionably plausible format, 2) the redirect doesn't make it clear which zombie movies it's meant to exclude, and 3) the number of pageviews this redirect is getting has been declining over the years. I'm not sure we need this redirect, but I could be wrong, and I'd like to hear your opinions about this. Regards, SONIC678 00:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramstyng

[edit]

Very implausible misspelling. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

[edit]

Jishan Alam

[edit]

Not listed on target page. Not yet notable eithier. Blethering Scot 23:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital

[edit]

There is no mention of "Craig" or "Theater" at the target article. This redirect is tagged as having possibilities, but such possibilities are closer to impossible if this redirect is a blue link and pointing at a title where the hospital is not discussed. Is mentioned on 3 pages: List of hospitals in Afghanistan, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing, and Advanced cardiac life support. Unsure if any of these are truly ideal, however, or if WP:REDYES would apply. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with the other similar redirect as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Mamum

[edit]

Not listed on target page. Blethering Scot 22:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crop Protection (journal)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Cruciverbalist

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Scottish Nose-pickers

[edit]

Little Evidence that this is a title that would be searched for. Only a reference to Nicola Sturgeon Picking her nose can be found using this search term. See no need for a redirect on that basis. Blethering Scot 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've merged these two related nominations that had an identical rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a very-long established nickname with lots of independent uses, e.g. [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and plenty of others. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. BarntToust(Talk) 20:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added the other redirect I made of a variant of this name. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at target/WP:REDYES. I would expect someone searching for this term already knows what it refers to, but is looking for information about its usage specifically -- information we don't have. And on the off chance someone doesn't, they may be left wondering why they were led to the target in the first place. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 35. Possibly speedy as well. Maybe those sources are good, I don't know. But it is definitely not helpful for regular readers, because the only evidence that they might be at the right place is tucked into an October 2024 discussion in projectspace (this one). So readers are unable to verify any of that, or "easily check that information comes from a reliable source". On top of that, it's G10. No mention of "nose" or "picker" at the target. The example textualized at the WP:G10 policy page clarifies that "mentioned attacks are valid". It's never been the case where the opposite is acceptable (unmentioned attacks). Delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, tag as non-neutral. This is a perjorative name that isn't clearly linked to its target at first glance, but as Thryduulf states has a long history of being used. I disagree with the IP's assertion that someone searching for this topic would 100% be trying to find out more info about what the name comes from-- they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to". But we have no information to help them determine that, or why it does. Wikipedia is not Google. If an ignorant reader puts in in the search bar, they'll have no idea why they landed where they did, with no information about the phrase they were looking for. It's misleading and a waste of a reader's time. Therefore, deletion is the only reasonable action here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The readers would probably notice that the acronyms of both are the same. Ca talk to me! 06:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, maybe not. And even if they do, they'd have no idea why they were redirected. Is this a common term? Is it a well known thing that someone used once with some encyclopedic history? Is it vandalism? The ignorant reader has no way of knowing, because we have no information about it. Wikipedia is not Google -- it's not our job to tell people what the term refers to without context; it's our job to provide the context. And if we have none, then the redirect shouldn't exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf. Sure, some readers aren't going to realise the implication of this redirect's existence (that this redirect is a term used to refer to the SNP). But if this is deleted, no readers will realise that implication. J947 ‡ edits 23:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "If this is deleted, no readers will realise that implication", and that's bad? Offensive redirects which aren't discussed at the target sounds like a reason to delete such redirects (RFD Del #3). I feel like we'd rather not expose readers to unsourced political attacks in the form of redirects, especially so because there's no information or sources in the article they end up at which could back up this title, and therefore no way for readers to determine if this attack has ANY basis in reality. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (other than from the existence of this redirect). J947 ‡ edits 09:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotolerance

[edit]

No mention of "tolerance" or "chaotolerance" at the target article. Seemingly a portmanteau of "chaos tolerance", but without an explanation at the target page, people using this search term would be confused as to what it means or how it relates to the subject, with no description or definition to warrant the redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or soft redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ra'ad 1

[edit]

The more I research this redirect, the more confused I get. For starters, this redirect formerly targeted the article that is currently at Fajr-3 (artillery rocket), and did for the past six years. However, before that, this redirect targeted the article which it currently targets. However, to throw some more confusion into the mix, another similarly-titled article, Raad-1, exists. I may have figured out a better plan for what to do with this redirect by now if it were not for its incoming links; I am not clear what subject these links are meant to refer to. I'm thinking disambiguate is the way to go here, but I'm incredibly unclear what the base title should be for such a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at Raad-1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district

[edit]

Among the temples listed at the article, "Bhairabi" isn't one of them, and the section this redirect points to no longer exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Food

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

[edit]

No mention of "Magical", or "Musical Adventure" at the target article. People looking for this individual show would not receive what they were looking for at the target.

The only mentions of "magical musical adventure" on all of Wikipedia are at David Joyner (actor) (which is unusable imo) and Barney (franchise), which is only mentioned once, in a sidebar. I'm not convinced this is the best option either, but at least better than no mentions (which is the status quo).

It might've been possible for me to retarget to Barney (franchise) without RfDing, as a means of getting it off the current target where its not mentioned, but I slightly prefer deletion of this redirect and/or recreation as an individual page, if that's even possible. Pointing as a redirect to Barney (franchise), with its only mention contained in the infobox, is not very ideal for this subject. All of the other Barney DtV home videos in the infobox seem to have their own standalone articles, so perhaps this one has some hope as well? Especially with the history behind this title, (even if it was supposably unreferenced since 2007, until being BLAR'd in early 2024). Utopes (talk / cont) 22:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farm park

[edit]

I don't think this is an accurate description of zoos. Zoos are definitely parks, but they aren't really producing anything like farms. Even petting zoos, which have domesticated animals, can't really be described as farms. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a little googlin' comes up with quite a few actual places describing themselves as "farm parks", which tend to be visitor attractions which are something like a park, but based around farm life, and not anything related to zoos. Delete as misleading/WP:REDYES. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for no good target. Like zoos, farm parks are visitor attractions with animals but that's about where the similarities end. Those in urban areas might also be called City farms, but our article on that is focused on ones whose focus is on food production rather than being a visitor attraction so it wouldn't make a good target here. We should have content somewhere about this type of establishment (not necessarily a stand-alone article) but if we do I can't find it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What is the difference between a farm park and a petting zoo? I would have thought them synonymous, but you've asserted they're not. I admit ignorance here. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that a farm park is a broader attraction that might include a petting zoo but might not. A petting zoo is focused on animals that can be petted, regardless of whether they are typically found on a farm, while a farm park would typically be much larger spatially, include attractions not based on animals, and might also have animals that can't be petted. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu Christianity

[edit]

Zulus live in South Africa but I don't see anything about Zulus practicing Christianity so what's the point? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shen an calhar

[edit]

How did this end up redirecting to WoW? Apparently, this somehow got redirected to the wrong franchise. Slight research shows that it's supposed to be from Wheel of Time. That being said, there doesn't seem to be a mention on that on there either. It appears that "The Band of the Red Hand" is a more common name for that in-universe group that the articles do mention. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Wheel of Time characters#Mat Cauthon, as that's also what Band of the Red Hand redirects to. Procyon117 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, upon further inspection, turns out it did originally redirect to the correct franchise, but was changed for an unknown reason. Could probably just be reverted back if you're not opposed to doing so. Procyon117 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Example of a redirect

[edit]

Shouldn't an example of a redirect redirect to like an example page? I don't think anyone wants to use this just to get info about redirect policies. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Lang and Clark Kent

[edit]

Delete
1. WP:XY
2. These characters existed long before Smallville.
3. They have their own pages. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-1'

[edit]

Questionable redirect because of apostrophe. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgea

[edit]

Georgea isn't really that close to Georgia. Also, there are people whose first/last names are Georgea so it would be kind of a surprise if someone was wanting to search Georgea, but nobody whose names are Georgea appeared in the disambiguation. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it pronounced differently? We only seem to have one article with such a name documented, Georgea Regout, and it doesn't have pronunciation listed. --Joy (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yosi (Nintendo character)

[edit]

Misspelling along with disambiguation. Don't see that as very plausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unambiguous and plausible mispelling. Japanese phonology doesn't really distinguish between "sh" sound and "s" sound. Ca talk to me! 13:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pufferthorn

[edit]

This is a species that appears in the Skylanders series, which isn't mentioned at the target article and wasn't at the time of the redirect's creation. One notable Pufferthorn named Pop Thorn may have been famous for ending the Trolls' usage of his species' thorns to brush their hair, and he is mentioned in Chris Edgerly's article, but I'm not sure about redirecting this thing there because it barely describes the species and the character other than Edgerly voicing him. I think maybe we should delete this redirect unless someone can provide a justification and/or a suitable alternative target. Regards, SONIC678 19:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Tianna

[edit]

It's unclear why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This site and other, seemingly less reliable, sources indicate that "Lu Tianna" is a Chinese-language name adopted by or used to refer to Gillibrand. There is precedent to keep these sorts of names, as seen in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31#Foreign language redirects to Kamala Harris. But, unlike Harris's Chinese names, I don't find evidence of widespread use. I am willing to reconsider if evidence that this is indeed commonly used by Chinese speakers to refer to Gillibrand exists. Note that Lu Tian Na, which is used here by the New York Times, exists as well. I am not a Chinese speaker so cannot say if the number of words makes a difference. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if this is treated like a Chinese name, then the variant spellings available from "Lu Tianna" would be "Lu Tian-na", "Lu Tian-Na", "Lu Tian Na" -- and the flipped forms "Tianna Lu", "Tian-na Lu", "Tian Na Lu" -- NYT uses one of the styles you can do with the syllables. In the PRC, the preferred form would have a single "word" to represent a name, so "Lu Tianna" if Lu is the surname and Tianna is the given name. This isn't the preferred style used in Hong Kong or Taiwan though. That is dependent and independent on romanization method, as some people style their names differently from the romanization method's preferred form. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Her Chinese name is known by the Chinese-language world, used by Chinese-language media. I can search a bunch of news article if I search on Google by her Chinese name "陸天娜" [62][63][64]. The name Lu Tianna (陆天娜; 陸天娜) is used by herself, pretty irrelevant to her English name. Lu Tianna, Lu Tian Na, Lu Tian-Na, Lu Tian-na are essentially the same, just with or without space or hyphen. It is just the difference of transliteration, all of them are used to some degree (and actually "Lu Tianna" is the most conventional transliteration). However, the transliteration is not a conventional way to refer to her, not in Chinese media or English media. This makes me doubt but I am still leaning that it is more useful than harmful. Sun8908 Talk 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tripartite Treaty (1906)

[edit]

Section includes one paragraph of some relation to the treaty, but the target itself includes a redlink to 1906 Tripartite Treaty. The topic is definitely worth its own article, so could just mark {{R with possibilities}} and leave it be.

Tisha Punia

[edit]

No point in this redirect, there is no coverage about him in this page. should be deleted until an actual article is made. Sports2021 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handegg

[edit]

Opening a discussion as this redirect's target has gone back and forth between Handeck and American football since its creation without any consensus. I would say it should clearly point to American football (or possibly Gridiron football), as even a fairly uncommon term for a major sport is far more likely to be the intended meaning by most users rather than an alternative spelling of an extremely small settlement on Switzerland. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 18 Wikipedia articles have mention of Handegg as a Place. There are none for Football. Handegg as reference to Football is an urban slang contrived pejorative inferred to have originated with "round-ball" Soccer enthusiasts, who actually comprise an extremely small sample of "actual" soccer fans and aficionados -and- within that segment of slang usage, it is not used in the targeted American, Canadian or Australian vernaculars. Web searches reveal a mixed rejection/acceptance consensus. Finally, I don't know if this discussion's initiator may be a "such a slang user" themself (no problem for me) -or- has even previously edited redirects to American, Canadian or Australian football, but redirecting to Football effectively serves as indirection for the uninformed (which slights Handeck/Handegg references) and furthers the "joke" of Soccer origins.DeXXus (talk) DeXXus (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems the article on the place was moved from "Handegg" to "Handeck" without discussion. I don't know if that was a good move or not, but even if so, this redirect should stay at the place name, which does include a Wiktionary hatnote, which even notes that it can refer to other flavors of football, but for which we have no encyclopedic content about the term itself. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, in case it wasn't clear per my comments above and Mx Granger's clear explanation below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hand-egg and Hand Egg points to American football, according to our Wiktionary entry, this is wrong, since it applies to all grid-iron, and rugby as well. hand egg is a redlink, while American handegg, Canadian handegg, and Australian handegg point to the expected destinations. --- I would suggest that hand-egg be turned into a set index of the grid-iron, Aussie, Gaelic, and rugby forms and their balls; "hand egg" would repoint there. "Handegg" would keep pointing to "Handeck" with a hatnote to the new set index at "hand-egg" which would also show wikt:en:hand-egg and wikt:en:handegg and hatnote Handeck; which has the redirect Handegg, Guttannen -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A disambiguation page would also make sense, but because the usual spelling has no hyphen the disambiguation should be located at Handegg rather than Hand-egg surely. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple uses of "Handegg" to refer to Switzerland on Wikipedia already, including other articles with that in their titles, so it seems better to use the form that is not used by Switzerland for the SIA name -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IOW, hand-egg is the WP:NATDIS form for the sports topic, which does not refer to Switzerland, thus a better pagename for the title of the set-index -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The slang term is not mentioned in the American football or Gridiron football articles, so retargeting there would not serve our readers.
    • A reader who is familiar with the slang term and wants to read about American football or Canadian football will most likely search for those more conventional terms rather than an uncommon slang term.
    • A reader who encounters the slang term and wants to know what it means will most likely be confused by a redirect to American football, as the slang term isn't mentioned or explained there. That reader is better served by the current redirect and hatnote to Wiktionary.
    • A reader who is looking for the Swiss village, which is spelled "Handegg" in some sources, is clearly best served by the current redirect.
I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario in which a reader would be better served by a redirect to a football article than by the current redirect. See Talk:Handeck for past discussions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bart (devil)

[edit]

No mention of the word 'devil' on the page; original page contents seem to be a random listing of pranks the character does in various Simpsons episodes. Xeroctic (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony DiGerolamo

[edit]

No mention on the page; nor on List of The Simpsons comics. This deleted page about a comic writer redirects here, although it probably is meant to target the page about the comic book section of the franchise, as it contains content about the comic book series with the same name as the current target. Xeroctic (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of American comics creators. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AFD (or PROD). The current target is clearly inappropriate, but so is the list above, since that's a navigational list of authors we have articles about, which this currently isn't. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of American comics creators. WP:BLAR is valuable here, as while the article did not contain any secondary sources, I strongly suspect that secondary sources WP:EXIST for this artist, given his confirmed portfolio, and so the article history should be kept in-tact for whoever wants to fix the article. Yes, this means that the link on the list becomes a circular link, but I can think of little reason we would want to fully delete this article and its history. Perhaps it could be converted to a soft-redirect to encourage article restoration with sources? Bart Simpson definitely isn't the right target, mind you. Fieari (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftification might be appropriate for that, but either this guy has a mainspace article and should be on the list, or he doesn't, and shouldn't. Keeping a list entry as a circular redirect to a BLARed article isn't really appropriate. (I really have no opinion on the actual notability, but the article as it existed had no sources). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Yoshi

[edit]

Blue Yoshi is only mentioned in passing as one of four color options, and blue Yoshis appear in several other Yoshi games throughout the series. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clump together with yellow yoshi since those two colors will pretty much always pop up together. otherwise, the same vote there applies cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "clump together" means in this context? Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'm told some countries refer to it as "bundling entries together" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you meant the nominations? I thought you were referring to the redirects. Got it, makes sense now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not that that matters much now, since it's almost close them o' clock. oh well~ cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Yoshi

[edit]

Yellow Yoshi is only mentioned in passing as one of four color options, and yellow Yoshis appear in several other games before and after this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to yoshi, as blue and yellow are the most common (and thus notable) yoshi colors that aren't green. both have existed since world (and so has red, but no one cares about red yoshi) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrajectine

[edit]

The expression is not used anywhere in the articles, so it is a WP:RSURPRISE. The name "Church of Utrecht (Ultrajectine Church)" was previously present at Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), but was removed in 2023 as it was not supported by any source.

"Ultrajectine" is a pseudo-Latin adjective that simply means "of Utrech" (see: wikt:Ultraiectinus), and I did not find any use of this pseudo-Latin word to refer to the city of Utrecht.

Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to wikt:Ultraiectinus Google Scholar shows several uses of this term in old Latin sources but very few in English. I don't think there's enough to say that this is commonly used to refer to the Union of Utrecht in English, but it's possible that someone might come across this term. Redirecting to Wiktionary seems best here given it is more common in Latin sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waking the Dragons

[edit]

Misleading redirect, "waking the dragons" is not a concept discussed at the target general article for Yugioh. "Waking", nor "dragons", is mentioned at the target.

If there's not an existing Yugioh location that this is able to point at, in an attempt for WP:ATD, this can be easily retargeted to Waking the Dragon which is an article that exists, and in the search bar having two would otherwise be confusing. I'm nominating here instead of BOLDly retargeting because I'm on a bit of a roll and there may be common threads if these are all "arcs" of Yugioh, as they seem to be, so better to have them all listed here for assurance and consistency. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memory World

[edit]

There is no mention of "Memory" at the target article. As it happens, this whole title is one letter off of existing redirect "Memory word", and may be misleading for people who miss the letter "L" there (which may be possible per Falcoln). In any case, the redirect is already misleading as this concept is not discussed at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom before tetsuya nomura finds it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duelist Kingdom

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pegasus' Cards

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

King of Games

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Buster blader

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banning policy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Blocking policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added User name policy to this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to User (computing)#Username format and move the article hatnote to the section, with a better explanation of why WP:USERNAME is linked, so that those users who are as of yet unfamiliar with namespaces can find what they are looking for. The current hatnote is insufficiently explanatory, and if I was confused and looking for the wikipedia username policy I doubt I'd understand the current wording. Fieari (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Miller

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Claire Miller

ChinaFile

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#ChinaFile

Chir'daki

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Murder of Paige Chivers

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Toady (Nintendo character)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

November 1

[edit]

Usurper King

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

India women's national futsal team

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Zelda 2016

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Carlos Brown (cricketer)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gilon Tyson

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Adam Thomas (cricketer)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

OFM Sykes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#OFM Sykes

Nimar Bolden

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jediah Blades

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Redirect/Archive 1

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Redirects

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Good articles on Wikipedia

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Good articles on Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Retarget

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Wikipedia:Retarget

Bibi the butcher

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Bibi the butcher

P Diddler

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kylie Koopa

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of characters in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Manual of Style:

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Manual of Style:

Mario &Luigi: SuperStar Saga

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Belly Blech

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Panjshiri dialect

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia Manual of Style

[edit]

It's categorized as a redirect from misspelling, but the space and colon are pretty far off. Maybe if people wanted to see Wikipedia's MoS, it could be useful. Kind of plausible but also unnatural redirect. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's a plausible redirect if i've ever seen one. from a look at the rcat functional index, i have no idea which other rcats would fit here. i guess remove r from misspelling as not a misspelling and weak remove r to project page as apparently that one isn't meant to be used in mainspace cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could say the same thing for Wikipedia Redirects for Discussion or Wikipedia WikiProject Biography or any other page in WPnamespace -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Original Research

[edit]

WP:XNR but it's quite literally the first thing that pops up when you search the phase on google. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP;OR

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

BLP:CRIME

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Great Depression in the Middle East

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Great Depression in the Middle East

Pink Yoshi

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hez

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Featured article candidates

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Featured article candidates

Nomination featured article

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Diddler and The Diddler

[edit]

The first redirect was created by a new user in 2015. Unsurprisingly, the topic isn't covered in cheating. The second term is an informal term for Sean Combs. Hence, I'm asking to delete them. Tavantius (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, classic {{r from avoided double redirect}}. Diddler => cheater => cheating. Cremastra (u — c) 00:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement, no need for a separate DAB page (struck). I was thinking it was a little silly when I wrote it, but didn't check further after reading WP:RTODAB (confirmation bias strikes again). Going back again I see you're right and WP:DABNAME covers this under point five. ― Synpath 23:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
intriguingly, the redirect was created by @FunkMonk, a veteran user with over 100 thousand edits. Tavantius (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination of The Diddler had the incorrect target. I have fixed it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Shedding and Cold Rocks

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Late 00s recession

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Late 00s recession

Moneygeddon

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Eirik Suhrke

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Currently links to composer Eirik Suhrke's name lead to the article for the game Ridiculous Fishing. This has created confusion on some talk pages as he is credited with working on multiple games and his mention on the Ridiculous Fishing article is confined to one sentence saying he was the composer for the game. Given the lack of coverage on the man himself and the extensive list of notable works he's been involved with it seems it would be best to delete the redirect, given it points to an article that contains just as much info on him as that of any other game he's worked on. XeCyranium (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listed the previous RfD from 2017 and notified of the discussion at the target and creator's pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snake eyes

[edit]

This was, for a long time, an article about rolling two ones. Redirected to Craps#Rolling in 2020, as it was deemed not notable enough for a standalone article. Later retargeted to the dabpage. I'd argue this is a good situation for WP:DIFFCAPS - the craps meaning is the primary topic, and nothing at Snake Eyes is referred to as "snake eyes". 162 etc. (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the disambiguation page to Snake eyes. There are two notable things possibly called "Snake eyes", at that capitalization. The dice roll, and the actual eyes of an actual snake. I suppose the latter term could also be used to describe reptilian eyes in other contexts (aliens, or the like). The content on the dice roll should be restored and merged somewhere appropriate for that content. BD2412 T 16:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move the disambiguation page The purpose is to bring people to the page they are looking for. I think the DAB page lists the media and the "rolling of the dice" definition. There have been two major movies with the same name over the past few decades that might bring people to where they want to go. If people search "snake eyes", it should bring them to the DAB page instead of the "Craps (rolling)" section that does not have a DAB link. Marty2Hotty (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marzipan joyjoys

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Marzipan joyjoys

Menthol Moose

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Haskell Harr

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Haskell Harr

Azaroth

[edit]

This is an ambiguous misspelling (and see @VeryRarelyStable:'s edit at [70]). It may be better to delete than to guess which misspelling the user wanted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Smith (rapper)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Benji Floros

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Shattered Island (Skylanders)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 31

[edit]

Counter-Strike player models

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

White Gangster

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

SpydaT.E.K

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

GKR (DJ)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ricardo Drue

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Standard articles

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore

WPSECONDARY

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tesonet

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Tesonet

WH:HG

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

PKS 0451-28

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#PKS 0451-28

Nortwest Airways

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

buccal organ(s)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Strogino CS Portal

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Building a sentry

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Day belt

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hat Simulator

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Hat Simulator

The Human Aquarium

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#The Human Aquarium

2029 in spaceflight

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#2029 in spaceflight

2028 ICC Women's T20 World Cup

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2031 Africa Cup of Nations

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2033 SEA Games

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Lists of Telugu films of future years

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

IRAS 13349+1428

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#IRAS 13349+1428

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

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

Putting wedge

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Putting wedge

Cackala

[edit]

@Hyphenation Expert: nominated this for R3 because WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". I have declined this. The term is indeed attested on the internet (c.f. e.g. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/the-biden-we-were-told-about-never-existed/ and https://moonbattery.com/biden-harris-regime-authorizes-military-to-kill-us/ ), which I think makes it a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to type in the search bar, even if they're not expecting a full article on this word. Duckmather (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is contentious information about a living person; if it is not notable enough to be described on Wikipedia with an inline citation to a reliable source, the redirect is WP:G10. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly childish nickname that I doubt very much will ever really be a search term. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". The National Review article doesn't say "Cackala"; it's a comment in the comment section (WP:NATIONALREVIEW is "no consensus" reliable anyway). Moonbattery is a WordPress blog. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep Very widely used to the extent it's plausible someone will see it out of context and look for information on who it refers to. "Childish" nicknames are definitely not G10 material. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G10. Ibadibam (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thryduulf, your declining of the speedy deletion nom and then also !voting here is an improper WP:INVOLVED action. Please revert one of them. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this was inappropriate and neither action was in my capacity as an admin. Anybody can contest a speedy deletion nomination (other than the creator, in some circumstances) and it was already being discussed here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    100% not WP:INVOLVED. All speedy deletion requests (other than office actions and copyright violations) are negated if any user objects, and as there is already a non-unanimous deletion discussion underway (this discussion), the article is not eligible for G10 and any admin acting responsibly should have declined the request. The accountability policy deals specifically with admin actions, not all things an admin might do; some take the view that declining a speedy deletion request is an admin action regardless of the fact that any user can decline, but !voting in a straw poll is definitely not an admin action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I don't imagine Kamala Harris would be particularly worried about a redirect to the Wikipedia article on her, and so BLP worries aren't major. I'm amazed that WP:RNEUTRAL is being used as a rationale for deletion (and even speedy deletion!) when it says nothing other than "treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect" with only an implication of applying slightly more caution. The point is – it's a plausible search term as it's a nickname so divorced from Harris' actual name that readers would be liable to not immediately understand to whom it refers, and seek this site for an explanation. J947 ‡ edits 04:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "it says nothing other than 'treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect'"
    In fact, it says redirects that are not established terms – used in multiple mainstream reliable sources – may be nominated for deletion. And even: G10 and G3 may apply. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficiently in-use in the wild that someone may legitimately be confused by it and want to know who is being referred to. Redirects are generally non-user facing, so this should not introduce any WP:BLP issues. I might have suggested it be added to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, except to my astonishment he actually hasn't used it personally that I can tell, it's just in wide wide WIDESPREAD use by his fans. MAGAs are weird. Fieari (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : A nonsensical derogatory name used a few times by Magas on social media and once by a partisan magazine should not be sufficient criterion for it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Nohorizonss (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is textbook WP:RCOM, without there being any prominent use of it as a reference to Harris. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf et al. Silly nickname, widely-used in social media (which makes it plausible enough for keeping). Reasons for deletion seem a bit over the top IMO, considering that this isn't a grave insult in any way. CycloneYoris talk! 19:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:RNEUTRAL's stated exception: not established terms [that] are unlikely to be useful may be deleted, in this case under reason for deletion #3: The redirect is offensive or abusive. A non-neutral term is established if it is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. This particular term is not, apparently appearing in zero mainstream reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being used in multiple-mainstream reliable sources is just an example of how a term might be established. The widespread use on social media seen here is another example. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our gauge for "widespread use on social media" normally is the published opinion of reliable sources, not editors' assertions that it is so, nor editors' claims to have seen this or that on Twitter. Have we lowered this standard for BLPs when the subject is a political figure? Or does WP:BLP still say things like "never use [...] social network posts [...] as sources of material about a living person" and "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a huge difference between things that appear in articles, that is, are "user facing", and things meant to act as navigation aides. The former needs proper sourcing, the latter just needs to be helpful and not misleading. Redirects absolutely do not need to be held to the same standard as article text. Fieari (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-neutral terms widely used on social media and similar but not regularly reported in mainstream media are exactly the sort of things people will search for, either because they want to find neutral information about the subject and don't realise the term is non-neutral or not mainstream or because they don't know or don't remember who/what is being referred to. Wikipedia redirects help both these groups find the information they are looking for (which is after all the primary goal of Wikipedia). They don't need to be neutral (indeed per WP:RNEUTRAL explicitly so), they just need to be accurate and useful. All that needs verifying is "is this term used to refer to the subject of/information found at the target?" and social media is reliable for that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being used in multiple-mainstream reliable sources is just an example of how a term might be established. The widespread use on social media seen here is another example.: I'm not as sure of that. WP:RNEUTRAL's language is if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral. Being used in multiple mainstream reliable sources is the way a non-neutral term becomes an established term, or at least that's what was agreed at the guideline establishes a term. With social media so diffuse and disparate, both big and siloed, I'm not sure how we can collectively feel sure of the reach of a term not otherwise recognized. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. Enix150 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, this redirect is compatible with RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at target, plain and simple. All this back-and-forth about neutrality is smoke and mirrors. Anyone looking for encyclopedic information about the nickname will find none (nor is there a mention anywhere in WP), leaving the reader with wasted time at best, and confusion at worst. John Q Reader searches for this, finds himself at the Harris article and wonders, "why am I here? is this a nickname? why? is it her own nickname? someone else's? good? bad? in between? is it vandalism?" etc etc. People have mentioned "valid search term", which is it, but for itself, not for Harris. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lego racers

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

Firstly

[edit]

Don't think a redirect relating to the adverb to a page that is specifically about the number is a good idea. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at First, Second (disambiguation) and Third.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ape Escape Racer

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Ape Escape Racer

Jamison Wesley Crowder

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

We're Barack

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Young FC

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bhuna FC

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bright (Suikoden)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gamma Squeeze

[edit]

Either delete the redir or fix the content of the redir target article. The Short squeeze article currently has no mention of "gamma" or "gamma squeeze" whatsoever. N2e (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with "Gamma Squeeze" as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Cemetery

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Byron Cemetery

List of Super Heavies

[edit]

Delete. This is a redirection of a meant-to-be-funny term "Heavies", created by an editor to redirect to his favourite playground. The term is by no means usual, or ever been used by anyone other than this editor who likes to link to this page on talk pages. I reccon this misuse of redicection pages. 47.67.225.78 (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure I understand the IP's argument? 'Heavies' is just... the plural form of 'Heavy' used as a noun, as in the SpaceX Super Heavy-- I could easily see multiple SpaceX Super Heavy rocket stages being referred to as "Super Heavies". If you follow the link given, you are, in fact, given a list of all Super Heavy rocket stages that have existed. Unless there's a better target for the redirect, we keep here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Super heavy as per the discussion above. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WP:BOLD :) 47.67.225.78 (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. We still have an active RfD; as per the text at the very top of this very WP:RFD page, it's very much not a good idea to change or rename the target of a redirect while it's under discussion due to it causing unnecessary problems for the closing admin and any other discussion participants. I reverted the good-faith edit here, but please don't do it again. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP List of Super Heavies is clearly different from the disambuigation page. If ya'll want, it can be renamed to List of Super Heavy Boosters.
Redirecting it to Super Heavy makes no sense. Looking at the Pageviews for each of the pages listed on the disambuigation page may help determine what people think of when thinking of "Super Heavy". Each number is the most recent # of pageviews listed.
Super Heavy (Proposed Redirect Target): 25, Unrated (disambuigation page)
Transuranium element: 141, C-class
SuperHeavy: 57, Stub-class
SuperHeavy (album): 12, Start-class
SpaceX Super Heavy (Current Redirect Target): 1127, B-class
Super-heavy tank: 364, Start-class
The current redirect target has more views than all the others. Combined. And then almost doubled.
EDIT If anything is going to be the redirect target for 'List of Super Heavies", its shoubl be Super Heavy booster.
Additionally, turning List of Super Heavies into a dedicated article (Alongside List of Starships) is being discussed here.
This is not without precedent: List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters exists, after all. Redacted II (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Guidelines suggest notifying the creator of the redirect if it is being discussed: "Please notify the good faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect"
This was not done, for either this or the previous proposed deletion. Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- "the current redirect target has more views than all the others." - this is self-serving. E.g., as Google looks up Wikipedia, it follows the redirect and spams the search results with the booster. It is irrelevant, though, as there exists other important "super heavy" meanings and the redirect has to respect that. I still think deleting would be best, but disambiation is second. Keeping is futile.
47.67.225.78 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The views of the Super Heavy article redirect briefly increased views by ~40, well within normal variation at the time (current variation is around 200 per day).
Current views of the redirect is 10. 10 views is nothing when daily variations are measured in the hundreds.
This still puts it well above the other pages. Combined.
Also, @ing users involved in dicussion regarding creation of List of Super Heavies.
@Ergzay, @HLFan, @Spookywooky2 You were all involved in the discussion that resulted in the disputed redirects creation. Redacted II (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was month ago, about "List of Starships" and finished. Has nothing to do with what is being discussed here, but call helpers as you like. Nevertheless, there is nothing called itself "Super Heavies", it's at best a plural referring to multiple entities called "super heavy", at worst nonsense. 47.67.225.78 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion that led to the creation of a redirect is valid in a discussion regarding a potential deletion of said redirect. In fact, you are supposed to notify the creator of the redirect and any main contributors. You failed to do this for both this attempt at deletion AND the previous proposed deletion. Redacted II (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@47.67.225.78 Please don't assume bad faith with statements like "meant to be funny" and "personal playground". That's extremely inaccurate. The plural of Heavy is Heavies or possibly Heavys in this case. It's a perfectly fine redirect. Your posting history shows a clear personal hatred for Redacted II. If you continue this behavior I will personally make it a goal to get you IP banned for this type of hounding. It is entirely inappropriate. Ergzay (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
(Just so you are aware, I have reported them before, but the admins had no interest in doing anything about it) Redacted II (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppeting only applies to accounts, not IP addresses, so your issue was probably harmed by not reporting things correctly. Also I think you picked out too many examples of simply uncooperative comments without enough examples of personal attacks. Keep the report focused. There's no rule you can't make a second ANI report after some time has passed with new events. It's been three months. Ping me on my talk page if you do and I'll back you up if there's sufficient evidence. Ergzay (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was likely killed by that mistake.
I'll give them another chance before trying ANI again. Redacted II (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ Ergzay. Funny how you accuse me of assuming bad faith, while doing the same with implying several other "misdoings" which have been rebutted long ago... Could you and your buddies please stop rallying against me? This seems to be a campaign to discredit me and this redicect discussion while no factual arguments are made. Totally out of context and just WP:PA 47.67.225.78 (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, saying that a B-Class article is a users "Playground" is okay, but correcting you for repeated violations of WP:AGF (and ignoring established facts) is a Personal Attack?
Okay.
Sure. Redacted II (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also don't redirect. Redirecting to Super Heavy makes no sense given that several items on that page could not possibly have a list made of them. At worst, it should have its own disambiguation page created and the SpaceX link made the "primary topic" for the subject. Ergzay (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a pseudo-disambiguation page for Super Heavy. Redacted II (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergzay, not sure I follow your logic. Are you suggesting that we keep the redirect to the SpaceX list? You said "several items on that page could not possibly have a list made of them". On Wikipedia we have a list of superheavy elements (link), a list of super-heavy tanks (link) and the list of super heavy rocket boosters (link). Perhaps changing List of Super Heavies into to disambiguation page linking to these lists is appropriate.
Also, I see no primary topic out of these lists, and article quality ratings and view counts probably aren't relevant in this case.
I am definitely going to eat some humble pie over my comment about these discussions getting low foot traffic. Commander Keane (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Commander Keane SpaceX Starship is regularly in the news making media headlines super heavy tanks and superheavy elements are not. That's why I would call it the primary topic. And I agree with "Perhaps changing List of Super Heavies into to disambiguation page linking to these lists is appropriate." However I will note that there's the related page List of Starships that links to the equivalent page for the upper stage, though I'm sure there's tons of other lists of starships of various meanings elsewhere on wikipedia we still have it as basically the primary page, without even any disambiguation pages. I'm not sure how these two cases are different. And finally, this is all prep to turn it into a separate page like like List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters once the list gets sufficiently long to split out. Ergzay (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is already a Super Heavy disambiguation page. And out of every article mentioned here, SpaceX Super heavy is both the highest quality (B-Class), most viewed, and the only one of "High Importance" to a WikiProject.
Redirecting the list to a disambiguation page that gets between 1 and 25 views per day (with the spikes in viewership matching the dates of Flight 1, Flight 2, Flight 3, Flight 4, and Flight 5) makes no sense at all.
(Also, I do believe that the list is already long enough to turn into a separate page, and has been for some time) Redacted II (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Jesus

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Stone Jesus

Alpha myrcene

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Srishti

[edit]

Not mentioned at target (not now, and not when a hatnote was added). Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Srishti, there's a name (Srishti Kaur, Srishti Rana, Srishti Jain), Srishti (film), Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology, and the partial title matches of Srishti Madurai and Srishtidnyan. Looking at the pageviews, I'm unsure whether the name is the primary topic, or if there's no primary topic; I think it might depend on whether the other uses are all derived from the name. It would also help if I had any idea why it was redirected to Hindu units of time; I'll ping Vinay Jha in case they remember. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig or Retarget to Sristi (given name), depending on whether the name constitutes a primary topic (I have no opinion on that, but the other uses probably aren't derived directly from the name - as mentioned above, "Srishti" is the Sanskrit word for creation). If retargeting, also create Srishti (disambiguation) for the other uses. The target doesn't mention "Srishti" at all so is clearly not a good target. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 09:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus that the current target is inappropriate, but is there a PTOPIC? I'll try to draft a DAB in any case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 01:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cremastra (u — c) 21:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra this is out-of-process, now the page is both a redirect and a disambiguation page. It's very confusing for readers. Why didn't you wait until this RFD was closed? Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz It is very standard practice to draft disambiguation pages below rfd templates. In fact, the comment in the template says Don't add anything after this line unless you're drafting a disambiguation page or article to replace the redirect. Cremastra (u — c) 02:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Atoms

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

BlueChew

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gxarha

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Il giustiziere

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 29

[edit]

Worm that turned

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

Killer Mountain (logo)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

[edit]

I'm nominating this one separately because of its history—it apparently used to be an article about the movie's soundtrack until a deletion discussion in April 2017 (the participants of which that resulted in it being redirected to the current target. Aside from spikes in 2021 and 2022, it hasn't been getting very many pageviews since then, so I'm not 100% sure we need this lying around, plus I've also created the correctly spelled Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) (which should help readers find the intended target), so I'd like to hear all your thoughts about this. Also, the participants of the deletion discussion (TheLongTone, Jennica, Bovineboy2008, Serial Number 54129, and Jo-Jo Eumerus) might want to weigh in on the matter, so I'm pinging them in case they have anything they might want to add. Regards, SONIC678 05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Like My Cheese Drippy, Bruh

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

三州府

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#三州府

2025 Dutch general election

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#2025 Dutch general election

Good Article nominations

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Communism:Overview

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Space In Stereo

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Starlow

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Starlow

Grooving

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Grooving

Site-specific Comedy Opera

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Site-specific Comedy Opera

Tapestries Muck

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

康米

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dimethylxanthine

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: set indexify

Steve Lambert - Emma Goldman Institute For Anarchist Studies

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dirhodium tetrakis(trifluoroacetate

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

Murgh cholay

[edit]

The target dish is detailed as vegetarian, and has no information about murgh, murg or chicken. Delete, as I see no other article on enwiki with this specific murgh dish. Jay 💬 08:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was going to get to this one, probably tomorrow or in the next couple days (whenever I got back around to the Murgh topic). No mention of "murgh cholay" at the target article, thereby making this a misleading redirect as we do not discuss this subject or any mentioned variations of murgh there. Retarget to Pakistani cuisine#Punjab where the dish is discussed with the most depth I've found. Readers can then scroll down two sections as it is also discussed in the #Saraiki section. It is also mentioned at Lahori cuisine, but with little depth. As long as it doesn't stay pointed at a page where it is never mentioned on. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I did not do a good job of searching. I have struck off that part from the nomination. Added a citation needed at Pakistani cuisine#Punjab since that section seems to be a summary of Punjabi cuisine which does not have mention. Jay 💬 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Joe Hill (journalist)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Joaquin Salamanca

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jank fraction

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jacob Condra-Bogan

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jackask

[edit]

No mention of "Jackask" at the target, nor any mention anywhere on Wikipedia outside of one, on John Milhiser, where it is listed as a "television title" that he acted in. For a Youtube series that is intended to be pronounced similarly to Jackass, such a misspelling seems to be the likely ask for searchers of this term. Especially since this Youtube series is not discussed at the target article for Jacksfilms. The singular mention at John Milhiser can very well be a piped link to Jack's general article, forgoing the need to have a potentially misleading redirect as a result. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrocal

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Hot Chips

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Herd morality

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Liongate Home Entertainment

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Her Royal Hotness

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Her Royal Hotness

Henț River

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Henț River

Hahn Mahlay

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gomberg radical reaction

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Clara Gleeson and etc.

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Game data

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

インターネット・アーカイブ

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Uikipedia

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mollejon Dam

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects

Crapulinsky

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_20#Crapulinksy for the reasoning behind this RFD. I didn't notice that the other redirect was misspelled at first. To keep this short, retarget to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Nickps (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many of us have them

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 28

[edit]

Universe (artwork)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Matthew sucka

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

Wokot

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

Jealousy definitions

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move

Nintendo Twilight

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mormons Losing Money

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

4-aminopurine

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Black Yoshi

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Falcoln

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

Mabe Village

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Mabe Village

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon

[edit]

his name was initially inconsistently spelled, with "gannon" having been used from 1 to alttp in japan, and only in 1 (and later zelda's adventure, but no one cares about that one) in not japan, so it was already out of the equation by the time the cd-i games were out. point is, getting two names mixed up and using an outdated spelling of that name doesn't seem that plausible cogsan talk page? contribs? it's yours, my friend 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plausible and unambiguous; deletion of this does not improve wikipedia BugGhost🦗👻 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further detail because this is getting more deletion votes than I expected: According to our article Ganon, In the Japanese versions of the first three games, his name is anglicized as "Gannon", with the citations implying that the spelling "Gannon" was still being used in 1991 (the Wand of Gamelon came out in 1993). Both the Gamelon/Ganon and Ganon/Gannon mixups are both very plausible in my view, and there is no alternate article that this could possibly redirect to - user definitely wants to find the current target. BugGhost🦗👻 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very Weak Keep. I will point out that even though Gamelon and Ganon are not the same word, they DO start and end with the same letters. Given Gamelon only appears in this game, while Ganon is the name of the series' overarching antagonist(s), it's perhaps plausible to get the two confused-- "Okay, so the name is Wand of... something? Starts with a G, ends with N... oh, silly me, it's Ganon!"
However-- and this is a big however-- the addition of misspelling Ganon does reduce plausibility a little more-- however, I would like to point out that this is also an extremely common misspelling of Ganon's name, so perhaps it doesn't hurt plausibility as much as it first appears?
I won't fight too terribly hard if it's deemed that this combo is still too implausible to be considered. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many errors. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly Weak Keep per Lunamann, plus the fact that while acknowledged as an error since, the original Zelda game does officially use the spelling "GANNON" with three Ns. This was unambiguously an error, but an official and published error. Someone could plausibly remember that it was an error from back in the day, and think it applied to this trainwreck of a terrible game. My !vote is a bit stronger than Lunamann's very weak keep because of this, but it's still slightly weak as I wouldn't feel the need to fight vigorously for keeping it. But I do think it's harmless, with an unambiguous target (even if in error), and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many errors. "Gannon" misspelling has no affinity, this is not the original Zelda game, and we won't be having Gannon misspellings for every single future Zelda game just because it was a typo in only the manual of the original. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too implausible of a mistake. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah, i think 5 delete votes to a keep, a really weak keep, and a slightly less weak keep would have been enough cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are based on the strength of arguments, not the strength of bolded !votes. As it happens, it is 3 to 5 numerically, but WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You may be right in principle but I'd avoid making a comment like this if you're WP:INVOLVED. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'll also kind of disagree with that, since even the substantially weak keep vote that the less weak but still weak keep vote was based on argued that getting two names mixed up and misspelling said wrong name might not be all that plausible cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Grass

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Facecore

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ruffian (Star Fox)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Herbert the Android Pig

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Herbert the Android Pig

Fay Spaniel

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Fay Spaniel

Uppers (video game)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Greater Luxembourg

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Greater Luxembourg

Canada bunting

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Canada bunting

Loudward

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Rhythm of ALT

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nomos Publishing House redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Nomos Publishing House redirects

Heather Cerveny

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Heather Cerveny

Harapanahalli railway station

[edit]

There is no mention of "harapanahalli" at the target article, or any other indication about a "Harapanahalli railway station" at the South Western Railway zone article. The only mention of "harapanahalli railway station" anywhere on Wikipedia is at the overarching article for Harapanahalli, but this article has a good number of problems and only contains two references, so it begs the question whether the railway station needs to be mentioned there either. In any case, it seems that there may need to be a change to either the target, or to the content, or to delete entirely if its not necessary to be included anywhere. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add mention. Railway stations that verifiably exist (and this one does) are always plausible search terms and are always DUE for a mention on the article about the line and in articles about the settlement they serve. Note also this was a BLAR and should not be deleted without an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I'm the person who created this page the Harapanahalli Railway Station which is functioning currently six trains are operating through this station please help me to publish this article
Thank you :) Darshan Kavadi (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Birth Index

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fund for the City of New York

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fpoon

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Fpoon

Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Erasing rule

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Electrotechnology

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Electrotechnology

DXAP-TV

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Diana Burnwood

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Diana Burnwood

Dhol (Kirat)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Dhol (Kirat)

David Carroll (academic)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

September 31

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#September 31

Darts Australia

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Danut Murariu

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

April 31

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#April 31

Daesh Tunisia

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Daesh Tunisia

D'ni Restoration Council

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#D'ni Restoration Council

October 27

[edit]

Tata (Persian King)

[edit]

There were no Persians at the time of Tata Викидим (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect was actually created by Maziargh in 2010 as a redirect to Awan dynasty, then subsequently made into an article by AnnGWik and since moved to the target of the current redirect (none of that is necessarily a reason to keep, though I will also notify those users of this discussion on their talk pages). There is no Tata on List of monarchs of Persia but I don't know enough about the plausibility of someone (incorrectly) believing this Tata to be Persian to say whether this should be deleted or not. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tata is a semi-mythical figure, but the Awan dynasty dates to approximately 2000 B.C.. As far as I know (I am no expert), Persians came to Persis and became "Persians" a millennium later. If I am correct, Awan kings could not have ruled Persian people. Викидим (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more getting at how likely would it be that someone would search for this person in this way, ie that people would think to search for a Persian king. But given the relative obscurity of this person, that question is probably impossible to answer so ultimately I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other if this is deleted. That said I think adding him to Tata (dab page) would be helpful and I will shortly do so, but perhaps you or someone else would like to revise my wording. A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading per the abovementioned findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that almost certainly the only way someone would find this redirect is by using it or following a link (which would likely be piped given the use of a disambiguator) so rather than being misleading, it can be helpful to help someone who is mistaken to find what they are looking for (but see my reply above as to whether that is likely to actually happen). A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of a redirect is not a "factual offering". The argument for deletion is like saying redirects from typos should be deleted because they imply the typo is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, the target is simply not a Persian king. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo A7V2's thoughts. As a redirect to Awan dynasty, the redirect was getting views from 2010, which stopped in early 2022. The subsequent views were when the article was being written, and this RfD. Ideally we can argue to delete this since we have a factually titled article now. But Tata (king of Awan) doesn't have any redirects to it. What would be a proper redirect title to indicate a king who ruled some thousand years before his kingdom became part of the "Persian region"? What is a more colloquial name better than Persia to refer to the historial Iran region? Jay 💬 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The place is known as Elam or Susiana. Even (Sumerian king) disambiguation would be less factually incorrect. Викидим (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and tag appropriately as a redirect from a (very plausible) error. A redirect is not an endorsement of accuracy, it is a navigation aide to help those who are looking for something find that thing. If someone doesn't know that a thousand years before Persia that land was known as Awan, this redirect will help them. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysolith

[edit]

Not mentioned at target in this specific spelling; is this as ambiguous as Chrysolite? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Googling for "Chrysolith" brings up the Olivine article, which states Translucent olivine is sometimes used as a gemstone called peridot (péridot, the French word for olivine). It is also called chrysolite (or chrysolithe, from the Greek words for gold and stone), though this name is now rarely used in the English language.. Mindat.org gives it as German synonym of: Chrysolite", it's entry for the latter is Predominantly used as a synonym for gem-quality olivine (see also peridot) but has also been used for prehnite and other green gem materials. Our Chrysolite article is a disambig linking to Olivine and other "green or yellow-green-coloured gemstones". My first thought was the completely unrelated chrysalis, searching for "Chrysolith" butterfly does bring up a few people making the same mistake, but not as many or as prominently as I expected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Thryduulf's research I would lean "keep", since it seems largely helpful (spelling chrysolite/chrysolithe/chrysolithos). Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4, may I ask why you created this section? Did you notice a instance of this, or someone searching for this somewhere, or is this merely a hypothesis that someone might? Checking Google Trends, I see no Google searches for this term for the last five years. We shouldn't create redirects for typos we hypothesize as plausible searches (WP:RSWIKIOPINION?) if nobody actually ever searches for them. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot I don't understand your comment - 1234qwer1234qwer4 didn't create the redirect, that was El Cazangero in 2015 (they were blocked for copyvios a year later, not relevant to the creation of a redriect) who targetted it to Olivine. It was retargetted in 2020 to it's present target by Opera hat. All 1234... has done is nominate it for discussion. As for utility, the redirect got 80 hits between 1 January and 9 September this year and 64 last year, which is significantly more than nobody (it's also worth noting that your Google Trends search is limited to the United States). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:30, 19 September 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, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. Also notified of this discussion at Chrysolite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Geez, a 4th relist, but wow ... the direction of the discussion seemed to change substantially after the most recent relist, so it's worth giving this another go to see if consensus gets clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy but delete LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy

Universal Studios

[edit]

"Universal Studios" is typically used to refer to either Universal Pictures, the film studio (as a nickname/former name), or the various theme parks around the globe named "Universal Studios" that are operated by Universal Destinations & Experiences. The parent company of both divisions is also named Universal Studios, Inc., which is where universalstudios.com points to (versus universalpictures.com and universaldestinationsandexperiences.com). Universal Studios currently redirects to Universal Studios, Inc., making it an unnecessary disambiguation, but a recent RM ended with no consensus for a move. Previously, the redirect pointed to Universal Pictures. I'm not convinced a primary topic can be determined here, given the two- or three-way split, so I would call for turning this redirect into a disambiguation page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best case I can present here is that the number of monthly pageviews Universal Pictures receives dwarfs every other Wikipedia article covering some aspect of the company. Outside of Wikipedia, it's much of the same. When you visit the main company's website, the film IP is front and center. When you visit their theme parks, film is front and center there too. Marketing? Yep, still front and center. The entire company revolves around (and depends on) it's film intellectual property, despite having a presence in other areas. Clearly, "Universal Studios" is a term that is most closely associated with the motion picture division of the company. The only other real competition here is Universal Destinations & Experiences, but per WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate, we simply place that in a hatnote like it is currently at Universal Pictures. If someone really feels a disambig page is necessary, we can add that to the hatnote as well. Simple.
BTW, even if the result is no consensus, the redirect should revert back to its former target, Universal Pictures. There doesn't appear to be consensus for that change either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll preface this by saying that consensus is presumed unless reverted, so we do have four months worth of implicit consensus for Universal Studios' current target, and many years worth of implicit consensus for Universal Pictures' current title.
Now, let me present a counterargument. If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine, depending on where you are located, you'll most likely see results for the theme park closest to you. For me, it's Universal Studios Hollywood, but you might get Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, or Universal Studios Beijing. What you likely will not see is Universal Pictures, the film studio, because the word "Studios" does not appear anywhere in the name "Universal Pictures"; it's simply being used as a shorthand or nickname. If you look at sources that discuss the film studio and theme parks, most use "Universal Pictures" to refer to the studio and "Universal Studios _____" to refer to the parks. I don't dispute the fact that Universal Pictures is more notable/important/popular than Universal Studios (the theme parks), but what's the evidence that readers are likely looking for Universal Pictures (a non-title match) rather than the many other pages whose title contains "Universal Studios" when they search the latter term? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"consensus is presumed unless reverted" – I know you know I'm a longtime editor (15 years in fact), so you don't need to explain implicit consensus to me, probably just like I don't need to explain to you that it's also the weakest form of consensus that only exists UNTIL "disputed or reverted" (either qualifies). It should be clear I've disputed it, but even if that escaped your attention, did you already forget about this revert by Intrisit? Or how about this revert by 162 etc.? Perhaps I should also take a moment to point out that STATUSQUO is just an essay with zero bite, since you've used it as justification in one of those reverts.
"we do have four months worth...for Universal Studios' current target", "many years...for Universal Pictures current title" – Really? Prior to May, we had 7 years for Universal Studios → Universal Pictures! You can't see this in the immediate history, because the redirect was overwritten in December 2023 by a page move, but it had been like that for years following the 2017 technical move I linked above. 4 months doesn't hold a candle to 7 years, but regardless of the comparison here, presumed consensus is non-existent at this point. It's the same deal regarding the "Universal Pictures" article title. The article was previously titled "Universal Studios" for nearly 14 years, nearly double the amount of time it has been titled "Universal Pictures". Arguing in favor of recent presumed consensus while conveniently ignoring the previous presumed consensus that existed for a greater length of time doesn't make any sense. Your "preface" didn't do your counterargument any favors.
"If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine..." – I think it's time you move away from this notion of relying on a basic web search for the premise of your argument. You did this in the previous discussion, and I showed back then (as I'll do now) that these are misleading arguments to bring to the table without proper context. The problem with using Google in the manner you are doing so now is that the "top hits" are tailored to advertising. SEO marketers exploit weaknesses in Google's search algorithms, such as PageRank, to game the system and push to the top of search result rankings. The problem continues to get worse each year, despite improvements made by Google and competing search engines. What you are witnessing in the results is bias; a bias toward marketing/selling/advertising. A better test would be to use Google Books, search on "Universal Studios" in quotes, and then on the results page, refine the results by using the dropdown "Any document" and selecting "Books" only (IMO, the other formats are more likely to cover travel and leisure in the form of advertising, skewing the results). Now what you'll find is that the first page is 4 hits movie studio, 6 theme park. There are some Econoguide and other travel-type publication hits on the next couple pages that favor theme parks, but from page 4 through page 10, the hits are predominantly the movie studio, and by a wide margin. I didn't spend time digging beyond that, but feel free, as this is a more reliable result that holds more weight. Do you find that interesting? I certainly did.
In any case, this may not be the so-called evidence required, and a disambig page is still an acceptable alternative, but let's not pretend that the recent change to the redirect back in May has any kind of standing consensus. Should this discussion end in no consensus, you can bet I'll be reverting that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize implicit consensus is a weak form of consensus; I was addressing your previous statement that there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target and Universal Pictures' article title — this is not accurate, although there may be stronger consensus for an alternative.
14 years and Google Books are because Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios, not because Universal Studios is currently the common name for Universal Pictures. My search engine example was an effort to put ourselves in readers' shoes and surface what they are most likely looking for. As I noted in the RM, I agree it's not perfect, but it still shouldn't be entirely discarded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target...this is not accurate" – My statement is entirely accurate, and either you don't seem to fully understand the concept, or you have misinterpreted my statement. Presumed consensus did exist from the time the redirect was changed in May up until the time the recent RM discussion was underway. But it disappeared, poof, vanished, during that discussion as soon as it became obvious that editors disputed the May redirect change. This is why presumed consensus is not worth spending so much time dwelling over or using as a basis for an argument; it is extremely weak. Consensus through editing is no longer presumed when disagreement becomes apparent. As for Universal Pictures, I assume you're referring to the "undiscussed" move comment I made about never getting the discussion it deserved, but I never mention "consensus". You may want to start using quotes to make sure you're getting it right.
"Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios" – I am not following this logic at all in how this relates to 14 years on Wikipedia. Are you trying to draw a correlation between the two that is factual, or just sharing an opinion? Google Books is something concrete we can look at and take into consideration. You're welcome to contribute something as well. The web search, however, is the opposite: flawed and uninformative.
There is also another angle to consider that I pointed out in the RM discussion (which BTW you seem to be avoiding). The pageviews count (1) at Universal Studios, Inc. shot up drastically following the redirect change, which comes as no surprise since we all pretty much agree the redirect change was the wrong move. This is just more supporting evidence of that. It's worth seeing that first and then comparing the pageviews count (2) at the former target, Universal Pictures, you'll notice the 8k+ dropoff that could have happened didn't really happen. A little fluctuation, but not much. The article's traffic essentially holds steady. This implies that Universal Pictures was likely to get that traffic regardless. Kind of an important aspect to consider as well in addition to Google Books and the other points made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how accurate this is, but according to Universal Pictures' infobox, it was formerly named Universal Studios, so I assumed this is why the Wikipedia article was only moved in 2017 and why some Google Books results use "Universal Studios". If the infobox is wrong, please correct me. Yes, I was referring to your comment on the "undiscussed technical move" of Universal Pictures, and perhaps I shouldn't have paraphrased that as "no consensus", but it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates an absence of consensus for the current title.
Regarding the pageviews argument, I no longer claim that Universal Studios, Inc. is the primary topic for "Universal Studios", so I don't contest that Universal Studios should not point to Universal Studios, Inc. I am calling for it to be disambiguated because I don't think Universal Pictures is more "primary" than Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, et al.
Interestingly, my Google Books results look different than yours. My first page yielded similar results, but pages 4–10 actually had mainly results for the theme parks. Perhaps more telling is that most results for the film studio pertain to the studio's "classic films" (typically the monster movies), i.e. when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios. These results were more or less identical when signed out in an incognito tab, so I'm not sure why you got such drastically different results. In any case, while I still don't think we should discard "regular" search entirely (this is how most of our readers navigate the web, not through Google Books or Google Scholar), I took a look at Google Scholar, and the results are similar to Google Books: 5 about the theme parks, 1 about the parent company (hmm, interesting), 3 about the film studio, and somehow the Masterminds production notes ended up on the first page. Second page onward are predominantly about the theme parks, with some monster movies sprinkled in. Google News is virtually all about the theme parks. Are you getting similar results? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates..." – Nope, simply saying it didn't get the discussion it deserved, full stop. In that discussion, we would have found out if it had consensus. I'm not claiming to know what the outcome would have definitely been.
"I don't know how accurate this is, but ... it was formerly named Universal Studios" – Company infoboxes, especially when they're collapsed like that, rarely get the attention they need to be accurate. This one has an entry for 1996–2014 that is conflating the company with the motion picture division (you can read this in the body), which actually demonstrates the point I'm trying to make! "Universal Studios" is often used interchangeably to refer to "Universal Pictures". People often do this. Books often do this. Editors on Wikipedia apparently do this (thanks for the example). Just another real-world example of why it's harmless for the redirect to point here.
You're missing the point about the the pageviews data. I already acknowledged we all agree about the parent company. This is what you need to focus on. More than 8,000 monthly hits at that redirect (people navigating to "Universal Studios") were taken away from Universal Pictures, yet this went nearly undetected in the average monthly views on that page. The traffic there essentially stays the same. I don't think we can ignore something like that.
"...when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios" – So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to explain this, and you are going to move onto the next perceived flaw you can find and see what you can expose. But nevertheless, the company originally opened as Universal City Studios in 1915. Its film division has always to some extent been known as Universal Pictures (there may have been a "Company" tacked on at one point in the mid 20th century). But what you'll notice is that there are books, newspapers, and magazines published from the 1920s all the way through the 2010s that still state "Universal Studios" when casually referring to either the company or the film studio. Interestingly, even from the very beginning, they preferred to drop "City" from the name in publications. Also, it didn't seem too important to distinguish "Universal Pictures" from the main company name. Seems they were always viewed predominantly as one and the same.
That's my personal understanding based on how the terms are interchangeably tossed around in sources. Only in official business relations or documents (or on screen) is extra care seem to be given to "Universal Pictures", which doesn't make it the common name, nor does it necessarily make it a good article title. As for your Google Books results being different than mine, I'll re-run it and post a list of my results. I don't see why those would be different unless we are running the search differently. Google Scholar is fine, but I think Google News suffers from some of the same bias and should be discounted. It's not a good test for this particular topic/debate. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's say Universal Pictures is often referred to as "Universal Studios" by academic sources (I take issue with this assertion and ignoring other types of sources, but I'm just going to WP:LETITGO and move on at this point). For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the studio is just as common as using "Universal Pictures", which is the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers. But how does this show that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the film studio is substantially more common than the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the theme parks of the same name? The pageviews argument is interesting, but I think we have convincing evidence that it is also very common to use "Universal Studios" to refer to ... well, Universal Studios. If the parks weren't named "Universal Studios", that would be a different story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back after stepping away for off-wiki commitments. At this point, the lack of participation from new editors (aside from 2pou) indicates this debate has run its course. I'm actually surprised it's still open, but I will close with this...
Your observation "the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures" relies on non-independent, primary sources. I'm sure you're aware from other discussions that when COMMONNAME is invoked, we seek out prevalence in independent sources. We wouldn't treat a primary topic redirect any differently.
The pageviews argument is just one of several angles given, along with Google Books (despite our experiences diverging in this RfD, which may need further exploration down the road). Then there's the WikiNav data explored below illustrating that guests searching for "Universal Studios" are not immediately jumping to theme park articles as you would expect after landing in the wrong article. The hatnote is right there at the top, front and center, and this might be the most convincing data to date (though you may find a reason to doubt it as well if you are beyond convincing, but if that's the case, why bother debating?). Redirecting to a disambig page isn't the end of the world. Not terrible, not great, not really optimal, but fine for now. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also back after a few days of absence. The portion of my quote you left out is important: the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers (emphasis added). I brought this up because anyone who has seen a Universal picture in the last few decades will likely remember reading "Universal Pictures presents" in front of every film. They won't recall hearing "Universal Studios" anywhere other than (possibly) common parlance or the theme parks ("We're going to Universal Studios!"). This is not advocating for simply adhering to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, I'm making the case that it is the common name precisely because general audiences are so widely exposed to use of the official name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - This seems to have clear WP:X or Y (or Z or XX or XY or XZ or YX or YY...) problems. Using the traffic to determine a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in this case seems flawed. Traffic is going to be driven up because nearly every film from Universal will be linking there as the distributor, skewing the traffic data. You can actually see this as 60% of arrivals to Universal Pictures is coming from other articles (as opposed to search, other namespaces, external, etc.). I wish the WikiNav clickstream worked for Universal Studios, but I think it does not because it is a redirect. Despite the hatnote, people do not get funneled to the Destinations & Experiences page... likely because people arrive via other articles, and they aren't actually searching for one of the Universal Studios parks in those cases. There are just too many options, so a dab page seems to be the most logical solution.
    Link to WikiNav clickstream data discussed. -2pou (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just a preemptive apology to the closer for continuing this very long RfD. The following points need to be made, despite that this round of debate appears to be headed to disambiguation (an acceptable option).
2pou: Glad you jumped in and brought up WikiNav. That's where I was going next before getting sucked into off-Wiki commitments. First, I should clarify that I wasn't arguing that Universal Pictures depended solely on traffic from the redirect. This page gets over 100k monthly views, and the redirect is only responsible for approx 6-7k views. My point was that in the 4-month period following the redirect change, its monthly view count remained fairly steady. There was some fluctuation, but not enough to match what the redirect consistently brought to the table. Is it possible that incoming traffic from other sources saw an uptick during the same timeframe? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unlikely.
So getting back to WikiNav data... You were on the right track, except we should be evaluating the redirect target "Universal Studios, Inc.", which is where people land when searching for "Universal Studios". This is a point of interest, because in earlier discussion we've concluded that "Universal Studios, Inc." fails as the primary topic. We'd like to get a glimpse of where outgoing traffic is headed. In theory, there should be a significant number landing there unexpectedly, leading to some portion of outgoing pageviews headed toward other "Universal Studios" articles. So what does the WikiNav data reveal? Universal Pictures is the #2 hit with 1,520 targets, and none of the theme park articles are in the top 10...Wow! In fact, you have to expand the top 20 just to see one, where you'll also see a partial title match named "Universal Animation Studios" ranked at #12 (151 targets). "Universal Studios Hollywood" sits at #17 (62 targets), and "Universal Studios Florida" sits at #19 (56 targets). They're barely a blip on the radar in comparison. The page gets a total of 14k monthly views, which as we discussed above owes a big chunk to the redirect (6k+ redirected hits per month) that changed in May. These two sets of numbers can help us draw a pretty reliable conclusion.
Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! For all this talk about the theme parks being one of the intended targets for those searching "Universal Studios", that doesn't appear to hold any weight whatsoever according to the WikiNav outgoing data. Something should be registering out of thousands of redirects, but we aren't seeing anything. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) (updated 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@GoneIn60: Sorry; I didn't mean to suggest you were relying solely on traffic. I understood that, I just wanted to make sure we don't just look at the number it spits out without considering those factors because it was going to be a very high number regardless. I did look at the Universal Studios, Inc. clickstream, and I, too, found it interesting that it didn't funnel people to any parks. I was discussing the Universal Pictures info because I was looking closer at the long-term history before the redirect was retargeted. While I think the data for Universal Studios, Inc. was interesting, I'm seeing that the data is a bit older. It says the data was dumped in August 2024, so it hasn't actually captured the incoming/outgoing traffic since the retargeting on September 10. Overall, I do lean towards disambiguation due to the sheer number of options, but I do agree that if it were to remain a redirect, Universal Pictures is the better option. Several articles for older films, actors, actresses, directors, etc. link there intending the (now) Universal Pictures page. (Yes, that can be resolved via clerical edits...)
I didn't realize until now that Universal Studios, Inc. was only "created" (via a split and move of sorts by HeroWikia - legacy company still captured at MCA_Inc.) in April this year. -2pou (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2pou, unless I'm missing something, this all goes back to the redirect change made in May by MinionsFan1998. So the data in August 2024 would be a valid date range to assess.
As for a disambiguation page, I don't disagree there needs to be one. However, I disagree the title of it needs to be "Universal Studios"; instead it should be Universal Studios (disambiguation). We can link to it in a hatnote at Universal Pictures, a common practice described at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate (and also something I mentioned in my original !vote). Then restore the redirect to its original target (Universal Pictures) based on the evidence provided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. I didn't go back through the history far enough when I saw the 10Sep retarget. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't have super strong feelings about where the dab page goes, but I do have doubts in having Universal Studios, Inc. as the target. -2pou (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'm with you about the current target. It's the least qualified for sure. My concern with having the redirect go to a DAB page right off the bat, is that there will be quite a bit of work needed to resolve the issues it creates. There appears to be 3,862 Wikilinks from articles using the redirect, and when you look at a lot of those links, they were created with the intention of directing readers to Universal Pictures.
Here's one random example I checked from the list...Piper Laurie. Just read the opening of the Career section and this source (the latter of which was inserted by one of our great copyeditors who sadly is no longer with us). "Universal Studios" is being used in the context of the film studio. We could potentially see many hundreds, if not thousands of these links now land on a DAB page unnecessarily.
We are left with three options:
  1. Keep as is – Worst one. Universal Studios, Inc. is essentially the history of "Music Corporation of America", how it came to be, its 1962 buyout of Universal, and everything post-buyout. Many who land here will be confused, as they expect to be reading about Universal's history.
  2. Retarget to DAB – Better, but far from perfect. Retargeting here will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly). It will also create the most work moving forward to manually update and correct these links down the road.
  3. Restore original target → Universal Pictures – Best by far given the # of Wikilinks, along with WikiNAV data on the topic phrase "Universal Studios". In addition, we have some loose off-Wiki data from Google Books that seems to support long-term significance in favor of the film studio (theme parks compete but do not overtake the film studio in this space).
Knowing what you know now, 2pou, are you still split between options 2 and 3, or do you have a preference between them? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60: The "Retargeting [to the disambiguation page] will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly)" will not be a concern if this redirect is disambiguated, considering an internal Wikipedia project page, WP:DPL, encourages editors to disambiguate links that link to or point to disambiguation pages, and there are several editors who work on this. Seriously, if there is one aspect of Wikipedia I have seen consistent over the past 10+ years, other than article creation, it is the plethora of editors ready to disambiguate links. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! The hatnotes (on both Universal Studios, Inc. and Universal Pictures) are new and were added by me on the day I opened the RM that preceded this one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
InfiniteNexus, thanks for pointing that out. I did not catch that in the history. Looks like you added the hatnote on August 31, and I like how you placed both options in there (the main theme parks article and the film studio article). Hopefully we'll get a chance to see WikiNav update soon to show September's data. Its clickstream data dump usually drops in the first few days of the following month, and from what I gather, this is usually processed and displayed about a week later on the 12th. We'll know shortly if the theme park company link in the hatnote became a factor in September.
It's also worth noting a few things. Using the "Search" box to jump to your next destination will still be tracked by WikiNav in outgoing traffic. Even without the hatnote, WikiNav would have still been capturing searches from that page. So for Universal theme park seekers getting their searches right on the 2nd try (by being more specific), we would have seen that in the August data. So I'm a bit skeptical we'll see a huge difference, but we'll see. In addition, the version of the article heading into August did contain Universal theme park links in the Takeover section as well as in the navbox at the bottom. To be fair, "Universal Pictures" was more prominent, appearing one section earlier and also in the infobox. GoneIn60 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barangay 79

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Barangay 79

User:@Sir MemeGod

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

"Degrassi characters" redirects

[edit]

Back in 2021, the target page was moved from the last redirect's title to List of Degrassi Junior High & Degrassi High characters (which is worth keeping at the current target since it's accurate and describes exactly what is promised by its title) to avoid confusion with List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters and List of Degrassi: Next Class characters, but apparently these redirects have stayed at the target for all these months since this move happened. I'm not 100% sure if the current target is the best place to take readers searching any of these terms; but I'm torn between keeping, disambiguating, and deleting; since the target article is the longstanding page of each redirect. I thought I'd bring them to RfD to discuss the best course of action, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Regards, SONIC678 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Head

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

A-hunting we will go, a-hunting we will go, heigh-o, the derry-o, a-hunting we will go

[edit]

Despite being implausible, unlikely as a search term, and wholly unmentioned not at the target article, but also unmentioned across all of Wikipedia, the redirect is also incorrect. It should be "heigh ho", not "heigh o". This exact spelling becomes near impossibly unlikely in the grand scheme of things, keeping in mind that all this time we're simply targeting "Yankee Doodle". People looking for the correctly spelled lyric, will not find it here either. No mention of "hunting" at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized: these lyrics aren't even for Yankee Doodle! A-Hunting We Will Go has existed since 2010 so I have ZERO clue how this could have possibly happened, besides expectable carelessness from the mass-redirect creations of unmentioned & unverified lyrics, filled with typos and implausible formatting.
For this page, A-Hunting We Will Go does currently contain lyrics in the article, and the lyrics indeed say "heigh ho". But these are also unsourced and should be removed from the article as well, per WP:NOTLYRICS and not being encyclopedic content. Lyrics can be included on Wikiquote or Lyricfinder if desired, or wherever the appropriate place to put such lyrics, on any site that isn't Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a lyric database). Utopes (talk / cont) 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go anyways, despite the impending removal of lyrics; the title of the song IS present in the redirect, and it would definitely be going to the right place if retargeted.
In other news, this was APPARENTLY created from scratch in August of this year by user:Kjell Knudde; however the history indicates that Kjell was merely adding categories to an existing redirect?? I've got no clue. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go. Cremastra (u — c) 13:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pump up the jam, pump it up, while your feet are stumping

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie.

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie.

Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor

Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition

Choose life (quote)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters

[edit]

No such list or section at target. However, Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters does exist, but it does not contain a list of characters. (List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Czar since they WP:BLARed List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters in 2015 [75]. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore article? Or simply refine to the "Settings and characters" section of the current target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Jay in that there is no list; someone using this redirect-- which would require someone looking for a list-- would be WP:ASTONISHed to find themselves here. Thus, I disagree with the idea that retaining this redirect is a good idea. I also question the idea of renaming these redirects, given WP:MOVEREDIRECT. Is the history of this page truly important enough to keep that we should rename the redirect in order to prevent it going away when the redirect is deleted, given the extremely low likelihood of it being brought back to a proper article (given its unsourced and non-notable nature)? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. not present, history had no sources cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In some cases not explicitly targetinng a list might be harmful, but this isn't one of them. These character lists are common on Wikipedia and we should take readers to where there is relevant information. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a prequel to Grand Theft Auto III, the game features both new and returning characters. The protagonist is an original character named Mike, who in his quest to avenge the supposed death of his partner, Vinnie, crosses paths with several prominent criminals that offer him assistance. These include explosives expert and firearms trader 8-Ball, Yardies leader King Courtney, and yakuza co-leader Asuka Kasen, all previously featured in Grand Theft Auto III, although their characters received significant changes in appearance and lifestyle to reflect who they were one year prior. is close enough to a list for me. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the "charaters" redirects as implausible misspellings, but weak keep the correctly spelled ones per Czar and others. The target section may not exactly be a list, but as others have argued above me, it's the closest thing we have on Wikipedia to a list of characters on that game. It doesn't make sense to inconvenience readers who are looking for relevant information on these characters. Regards, SONIC678 16:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure cruft; unnecessary; pointless to restore. Even if LISTN could be passed, it would need TNT. Not salvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025–26 Formula E World Championship

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Antelope horns

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

India as a potential superpower

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Hi-IN

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Th-TH

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Neo-mooris

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Neo-mooris

Neo-moors

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Neo-moors

Amanuwil Binyamin Ya'qub Gharib

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

Çornosturuf

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Çornosturuf

Kırıvçe

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Kırıvçe

Necko Jenkins

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 26

[edit]

The ancient city

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Murgh

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Murgh

Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

Burnt Food

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Burnt Food

Michael J. Burns

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Canales semicirculares anterior

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cadenas y canales de televisión

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

CSSBuy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cruciverbalist

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Cruciverbalist

Crop Protection (journal)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Crop Protection (journal)

Crean Hill, Ontario

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Craig Joint Theater Hospital

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Craig Joint Theater Hospital

Cowboy Luttrell

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Cowboy Luttrell

Roger M. Cooke

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Conerve

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Conerve

Communist Party (Kosovo)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Communist Party (Kosovo)

CNN Underscored

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Enslaved Africans

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Pizzaface

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Fântânele River (Mureș)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Fântânele River (Mureș)

Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district

Ra'ad 1

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Ra'ad 1

Melonade

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; listed in Lucozade#Variants but there is also a more general Wiktionary entry at wikt:melonade. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Nose-pickers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Scottish Nose-pickers

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Linjian

[edit]

The name, which is that of a town in the Chinese province of Shandong, is being redirected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson with same name. Either it should be deleted or be redirected to the target page I have given.Toadboy123 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ain't I a stinker? (remaining bundle)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

It's time to d-d-d-d-duel

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#It's time to d-d-d-d-duel

Tiff & Tuff (Chara(c)ters)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hall Airport

[edit]

I PROD'd the article about this airport on the basis that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Another user made a good-faith effort to preserve the content by merging it with Kaufman, Texas, article, but the user did not realize that the airport has been removed from FAA records because it has presumably closed permanently (which, in 20/20 hindsight, I should have mentioned in the PROD nomination). Thus, the airport article has been replaced with a redirect targeting an article about a town, but the content discussing the airport should presumably be removed from the target article for the same reasons I outline above. I suggest that both the content and the redirect should be deleted. Carguychris (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Carguychris: As long as the content is there, the redirect is appropriate. If the content is removed from the target article (which is not something RfD can or should compel, but something you can do yourself per WP:BRD), then the correct thing to do is to restore the article and send it to AfD. If you think the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then I'd recommend the latter course of action (in which case you can close this as withdrawn). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've axed the airport content from the target article, but restoring the previous Hall Airport article solely to AfD it seems excessive. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:RECENTISM Wikipedia is not just about what is there right now, history is also a part of Wikipedia. So if there was an airport there, why would it not be appropriate to be part of the town's history? Just as we keep around Tempelhof Airport article after it closed, then we should have history sections for towns, mentioning significant landmarks that no longer exist.-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tempelhof clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Hall Airport was a privately owned 2,500' grass strip with no significant facilities. Most small private airstrips shouldn't have Wikipedia articles per WP:ROTM, but many of them do because they're listed in convenient online aviation databases. Carguychris (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the anon here. My preference would be to restore the content to the article and keep the redirect. I agree that this airport isn't notable enough for its own article. I don't agree it isn't worth a mention at the town article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore content per Presidentman. Being closed doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all. A7V2 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 attacks

[edit]

These redirects assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001, which is false. I suggest retargeting them to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. As for 2001 attacks, it can probably be downright deleted by RC,IR as it was made less than a year ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. There were some similar redirects rfed earlier this year but I forget which. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, especially if they don't know beforehand what title we gave it. That's just a very natural way to search for it. Also, readers looking for 9/11 will easily find it at that target page, while the opposite is way less obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last year, 2001 terrorist attacks got 29 views, which is good enough for me. Even if nobody is using it (and that's not the case), that's not a reason to delete per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra (u — c) 14:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra It's not about deleting the redirects, it's about retargeting them to more appropriate targets, as I suggested when I first started this RfD 2 weeks ago. Besides, I only suggested deleting the more recent redirect as a last resort. Aside from that, I never suggested deleting the older redirect created back in 2006, just retargeting it to a more plausible target. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Then I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. How do low pageviews point to retargeting to List of terrorist incidents in 2001? Cremastra (u — c) 16:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra Because barely anyone uses the redirects for going to the 9/11 page (given the pageviews). Because people are more likely to search for 9/11 instead of either of the 2 redirects, it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents (given the massive ambiguity of "2001 attacks" compared to 9/11, see Chaotic Enby and Steel1943's points), in spite of the points of 9/11 being the most notable of all the other 2001 incidents. PTOPIC isn't exactly clear if people don't search for the 2 redirects and instead search for 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeaHaircutSoilReplace If "barely anyone" uses the redirects for navigating to 9/11, I don't see how the pageviews will increase if we retarget. I still don't entirely follow your train of thought here. People do use these redirects, and since 9/11 is the PTOPIC here, I simply don't see how retargetting to a more general target is the most helpful option for readers here. Like CFA and Tavix said, it's the primary topic and redirects are cheap. You say it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents, but I'm still struggling to understand why it makes sense. You seem to be assuming that readers don't use these redirects because (in your view) they point to the wrong place, and that by retargetting to a more general target, pageviews will increase. Readers aren't looking at RfD. They aren't going to spread the word that the redirect got retargetted. Cremastra (u — c) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think 9/11 will be the primary topic, and I never will for that matter. As said earlier, "2001 attacks" is far too vague for anything, including 9/11, to qualify for its primary topic. I'm not going to deal with this any longer. By the way, WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to apply here. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they are editing disruptively. C F A 💬 23:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, sure. But I don't think accusing me of sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is, in fact, very productive here. But I digress. The searches do show it's the primary topic for me, but PTOPIC is something reasonable people can disagree on; it's often hard to find. I still don't understand what pageviews have to do with anything, but I'm happy to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the horse be. This discussion is probably due for a close anyway. Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nominator. The 9/11 attacks were not the only attacks to happen in 2001. JIP | Talk 08:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. While 9/11 was by far the most significant, the anthrax attacks are not to be discounted. Retargeting to the list of attacks in 2001 would still help those looking for the 9/11 article as well as feel consistent to those looking for other attacks. I think it's worth noting that there are fairly large attacks that happened in Angola, China, and Kashmir in 2001. From an internationalization perspective, I can easily see how Wikipedia users in those countries may be thinking of these attacks instead of 9/11 when trying to find "2001 attacks." Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of City 17

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Obstipation

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

Wikipedia:VB

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sonam Maskar

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Uncle Cosmo

[edit]

still not the biggest columbohead out there, but from a couple days of looking around, i haven't found any relation between this name and columbo (or columbo). is this something from later episodes that just hasn't been mentioned anywhere yet, or...? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else able to find any sign of this anywhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to generations: the legacy, since it's the best we got cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IBP

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Back to Gecko

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Picric acid (homeopathic remedy)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Picric acid (homeopathic remedy)

MOS:ASTRO

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chaotolerance

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Chaotolerance

ChinaFile

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#ChinaFile

Chir'daki

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Chir'daki

Murder of Paige Chivers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Murder of Paige Chivers

Chlaenius atratulus and Chlaenius azureulus

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cozy horror

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chlaenius anchomenoides and some

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx

October 25

[edit]

Wikipedia:ZNB

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Geoffrey Chalmers

[edit]

Name not mentioned at target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Comment the previous RfD noted that the McConnohie was credited as Geoffrey Chalmers and that this was mentioned in the article. Mention was hidden by an IP editor in June 2021 with the comment "I'm hiding this source until verified". The information was sourced to [80] but the current version of that page doesn't include the name (I've not investigated whether it ever did). Googling "Michael McConnohie" "Geoffrey Chalmers" finds a lot of hits making the same connection, but every site is either unreliable (IMDB, wikis) or one I have no idea of the reliability of. This needs attention from someone familiar with sourcing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to take a dive into the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: semi-involved relist to close the 7 October log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 23:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One was IMDb and the other was animenewsnetwork.com which is crowd sourced (This encyclopedia is collaboratively edited by the users of this site. Jay 💬 07:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeitsamt

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Arbeitsamt

S-compact space

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#S-compact space

Usurper King

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Usurper King

N3rd

[edit]

Probably ought to be a dab page as can conceivably refer to White N3rd of LuvBug or N3RD Street (which really ought to be at N3rd Street). Am I missing something? Launchballer 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am not sure how this eneded up being a redirect from n3rd street, my bad! It should be it's own standalone musician page for N3rd (he changed his name from White N3rd and yes is a part of Luv Bug who have their own wiki page already) Tommonovisio (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi is it possible to assist me please, so that the N3rd page can exist but we fix the issue where it became a redirect? @Launchballer Tommonovisio (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Tommonovisio:. I can advise that I redirected N3rd back to LuvBug as none of its claims were backed up by reliable sources; after removing them, the article did not assert why he was important or significant. If you can provide sources to back up your claims, feel free to try again, but consider starting in draftspace (i.e. Draft:N3RD).--Launchballer 00:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks I will try to find references to verify the accolades/claims! Tricky thing is that he mostly writes tunes for other people which have had success, more so than his own releases.. Tommonovisio (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate? Or retarget to Nerd (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the dab per the ip editor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a hatnote to LuvBug if you want. The street is pretty clearly primary here (since it actually has its own page), and there's only WP:ONEOTHER possible target, so this is the ideal setup. No one searching 'n3rd' specifically is going to be looking for any other extant uses of the term. A second hatnote to the dab page would probably be overkill, but still preferable to redirecting there outright. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, this is a little more complicated than I first realized...I missed some of the history and the repeated recreation/deletion of White N3rd. But I still think the street is primary here. And with only two possible targets, one primary, redirecting to the big dab page would be very unhelpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per IP. Hatnote may be added once we have enough info about White N3rd at LuvBug. Currently it does not. We already have a hatnote to the dab page at the target since 2018. Jay 💬 08:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isometry (mathematics)

[edit]

Since the primary topic Isometry is already a mathematical topic, I don't think this should be a redirect to the disambiguation page (which also seems to consist of a lot of WP:PTMs). (Note that there is also Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation); not sure how much precedent there is for such redirects.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quran Afghanistan

[edit]

Very general term; this Quran doesn't come up in the entire first page of google results. I'm not seeing a primary topic here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Quran in Afghanistan . 19:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
I've added that to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 11:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic WP:XY. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an XY situation at all, as the redirect only refers to a single topic. It may or may not be vague or ambiguous, but it isn't XY. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too ambiguous; there are probably hundreds of Qurans in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searches for "Quran in Afghanistan" return mostly the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, followed by some assorted social media slosh. My leaning is delete because this ambiguous, but I'm willing to try drafting a DAB page. Cremastra (u — c) 14:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done at Quran in Afghanistan. Cremastra (u — c) 20:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on disambig?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current target of these redirects, World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan, has been nominated for WP:AFD (AfD discussion): If the current target gets deleted, a disambiguation page would be a WP:TWODAB situation. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After giving this some thought, none of the current articles listed at the proposed disambiguation page are truly plausible as targets readers may be searching for when looking up these phrases. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snapseed 2.22.412829873

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Snapseed 2.22.412829873

Spacelike vector

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Spacelike vector

Tick tock tick tock tick tock

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Farage riots

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Texvc

[edit]

Legacy cruft does not warrant a double soft redirect from mainspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget if a mention is added. The page was moved (without redirect) to project space in 2010 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texvc reached no consensus. The redirect was recreated "since Meta has many links to this page, and I don't have access to a bot to correct Meta". The redirect gets over 400 hits a year with only a handful of days with zero visits, and I can find no evidence of anything else with this name so it's clearly providing value to those using it. I don't know how to filter out all the manpages, package lists, forum questions and programming snippets, etc. to assess whether this is notable enough for a mention somewhere, but someone who does know how to do that should do that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since there is no page in projectspace, it is a redirect to an offsite location, this is therefore a redirect to an offsite location, and not the proper use of a redirect. The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary. Per Thryduulf's stats, WP:REDLINK to allow creation of an article, should it prove notable. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary this is incorrect. While Wiktionary is the most common target of soft redirects in the mainspace it is not the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: unambiguous. Cremastra (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is all over the place - any more support for TechnoSquirrel69's compromise suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism (arts)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Cancellated

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Cancellated

India women's national futsal team

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#India women's national futsal team

Zelda 2016

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Zelda 2016

Japanese opera

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2007-06-17 (June 17, 2007)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Yoshi series bosses

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mrinal Chauhan

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of deputy speakers of the Goa Legislative Assembly

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hoppy the Frog

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2028 World Athletics Indoor Championships

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Future Formula One World Championships

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Future Indian Premier League seasons

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep 2026, Delete the rest

CSSHQ

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Ceddin Deden

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Ceddin Deden

Eirik Suhrke

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Eirik Suhrke

April 4, 1974

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Will (sociology)

[edit]

The word "will" does not even appear on the page, and it's not obvious what it's referring to. Batrachoseps (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 AFC U-20 Asian Cup squads

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup squads

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 Africa Cup of Nations squads

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

June 3, 2007

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1256302635"