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 Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 0 0 6 6
TfD 0 0 0 7 7
MfD 0 0 3 3 6
FfD 0 0 1 6 7
RfD 0 0 24 23 47
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

December 15

[edit]

IMF (file format)

[edit]

Ambiguous with Interoperable Master Format. This redirect has nontrivial history that was merged into Id Software; I think the best approach would be moving it to a less ambiguous title, and redirecting the original title to IMF (disambiguation) § Computing. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being the one that created the article and later redirect, I fully agree with the approach. Sega381 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isma'ili sect (Isma'iliyyah)

[edit]

pointless redirect GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal El Aly

[edit]

Not mentioned in target article; no other reasonable target can be found Jalen Barks (Woof) 17:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUY

[edit]

Cross-namespace redirects need exceptional reasons to exist, and "shortcut to one person's talk page" isn't one of them. Seems like it might have been created as a gag, a very "Wikipedia in 2008" sort of thing. Creator vanished eight years ago so won't be able to contribute to this discussion.  — Hex • talk 13:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not a helpful redirect, wp:astonishing target. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Fag, WP:FAG, and WP:FAGFP

[edit]

Nobody is going to use the homophobic slur fag as a shortcut to this project page, either for linking or searching.

Two of these were listed at RfD in 2013:

Arguments for keeping at the time hinged around "they're useful", but the complete lack of usage in the succeeding 11 years demonstrate conclusively that our editors have sufficient common sense to understand that they're not.

  • WP:Fag - 11 links, of which 1 on its talk page, 1 in a programmatic list of shortcuts, and the rest are discussions about the redirect itself
  • WP:FAG - 13 links, of which 1 on the target, 3 in programmatic lists of shortcuts, and the remainder discussions about the shortcut itself
  • WP:FAGFP - 5 links, of which 1 on its talk page, 1 on the target and the remainder discussions about the shortcut itself

The average daily visit count for each of these page titles during the past year is zero.

The unlikeliness of anyone ever requiring these redirects is reaffirmed by the low usage of the other shortcuts offered by the target page, which are:

  • WP:FINDAGRAVE - 29 links
  • WP:FIND-A-GRAVE - 2 links, which are the page itself and one of the aforementioned RfDs
  • WP:GRAVE - 8 links, including the the page itself, one of the aforementioned RfDs, and one person who thought they were linking to WP:GRAVEDANCING

All of these redirects also have an average daily visit count of zero.

Note: the creators of the two uppercase redirects have retired from the project, so will not be able to contribute to this discussion.  — Hex • talk 13:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sees zero usage, offensive and confusing when seen in source editing. Ca talk to me! 14:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2820:B715:5791:DD39 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Till It's Gone (Remix Feat. Rihanna)

[edit]

This… doesn't exist. Originally, this was a very short article claiming that "Til It's Gone" would be the third single of Britney Jean with a music video coming on 'May 23rd', but it was quickly noticed and replaced with a redirect instead of being deleted. I'm sure no one is going to find this misspelled redirect about an imaginary Britney-Rihanna collab useful. Delete. 84.65.16.255 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisProject

[edit]

Unused WikiProject template shortcut created in 2010. Target has other, better shortcuts listed.  — Hex • talk 11:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would be very confused where that shortcut leads me to. Ca talk to me! 14:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It goes to dis project, obviously. (Not to be confused with: dat project)  — Hex • talk 14:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ED

[edit]

It appears that this redirect is mostly used by accident (where the author intends to link to Wikipedia:Edit warring or Wikipedia:Edit summary), and currently links to an obscure deprecated page from Wikipedia's early days. I propose deleting it, since I don't think that there is a clear best alternative target JJPMaster (she/they) 06:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Out of 960 links, over 900 are the result of a mistake in a message template used by VoABot II during a period in 2007. Of the rest, about ⅔ are editor mistakes and the remainder pages with lists of shortcuts. I don't see a particularly good target for this either.
 — Hex • talk 12:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe (drink)

[edit]

This appears to be a reference to Cup of joe, but searching this on Google only displayed teas and alcoholic beverages. Ca talk to me! 04:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 65.92 - It's not implausible that someone might hear the phrase "cup of joe" and search Joe (drink) to find out what it is referring to. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of saints starting with A

[edit]

Unusual redirect, a long list of saints that was nominated for deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of saints as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Absolutiva (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no lists of saints anywhere on the target (let alone those that start with A), and it's too vague to redirect to any of the specific ones Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Catholic saints#A as WP:PTOPIC, or else Delete as ambiguous - The Lists of Saints page doesn't have any saints that begin with "A" because it's a list of lists, and we have lots of articles of the saints of different denominations and even different religions... but I think in the English speaking world, when you say you want a list of saints, I'm pretty sure people default to the Roman Catholic ones. If other editors disagree with this, then the only other option is to delete as ambiguous. Fieari (talk) 07:18, 10 December 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! 04:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freak-off

[edit]

I just removed an unsourced mention of this phrase at target. Even if a source were added, they're not the same thing: Per [1], there are allegations of sexual exploitation at the White Parties, but that's distinct from the alleged freak-offs in hotel rooms. If there's a place this should target, it's Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, but currently "Freak-off" only appears in citations there. If mentioned in the body of that article, I'd support a retarget. Else, delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pansexual Pride Day

[edit]

Not mentioned specifcially, as Pansexual pride day happens in December, not May. They are different dates. Retarget to Pansexuality#Pansexual_&_Panromantic_Days. --MikutoH talk! 02:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfem

[edit]

It was recently retargeted. --MikutoH talk! 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was recently retargeted? What is being requested here? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin see this consensus. Not every transfem is a woman, that's why they don't fit in these articles. --MikutoH talk! 02:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these were retargeted against consensus, then they can be speedily reverted, no need for an RfD unless the retargeter wants to seek a new consensus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand this correctly, these were originally targeted at Non-binary gender#Definitions and identity. This was changed to retarget them at Transgender (discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_3#Transfeminine_and_Transmasculine) and then that was refined to point at Transgender#Transmasculine and Transgender#Transfeminine as appropriate. That was the state of play from 2021 until November 2024 when it was changed. I don't see any discussion but maybe I didn't look everywhere. Whatever the reason for the most recent change, I don't think it was an improvement. I'd support a revert to the previous targets. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and close RFD. No need for this discussion if the change was against consensus. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

[edit]

Basecamp (DJs)

[edit]

No longer mentioned at target article. Jalen Barks (Woof) 21:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild (Spore)

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brahuistan Province

[edit]

This may require an expert on the region, which I am not. Regardless, the namespace is not mentioned in the targeted section nor the entire article about administrative units of Pakistan. Brahuistan is the name of a historic region and while it has a nationalist movement, I can find no evidence that it has been proposed as a new province of Pakistan, as implied by the redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingite

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

Legends Drum and Bugle Corps

[edit]

Does not appear at target article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I removed it from the target page since it no longer fits the criteria of the list (i.e., a multiple-time finalist in the World Class division). However, I would not be opposed to keeping it purely to preserve the page history. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on... the criteria of the list reads list of defunct Drum Corps International member corps, particularly those that have been finalists multiple times. The Legends Drum and Bugle Corps seems to satisfy that. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They have not been finalists overall, only in the lower division (which most make since it is smaller). The only time a lower-division corps has made finals was the Magic of Orlando in 2002. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no need for this, no important links to it nor is it of any substance. It's probably best to delete this redirect entirely as it has also been removed from the target article.
This0k (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tabernacle

[edit]

Many other entries at Tabernacle (disambiguation) are referred to as "The Tabernacle", and I don't think this concert hall is the clear primary topic among them. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You lose

[edit]

Delete or retarget somewhere else per WP:RECENTISM (Wikipedia:Recentism) and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper). Another common example of Wikipedians putting neologisms and contemporary history first by redirecting common terms to recent and current events. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: See also Talk:You lose#Why this page. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I don't fully agree with at WP:RECENTISM. It is a policy and this definitely fails it completely. This0k (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a policy, see below. Andrewa (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Recentism is not a policy, and WP:RECENTISM redirects to it, so it's not a policy either. Similarly WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper both link to the same section. So these four links turn out to link to only one policy. This policy has four clauses, 1. Original reporting. 2. News reports. 3. Who's who. and 4. Celebrity gossip and diary. All of these are described in more detail in the policy but none of them apply here. Andrewa (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. the fact that it required a talk page to explain the comment should be an ill enough omen for this redirect. even if the law of how to win every argument ever didn't exist, it would still be hopelessly vague cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

[edit]

New Roman Empire

[edit]

No mention at target and not an expression commonly used to refer to the Italian Empire. There seems to be no primary topic.

Thus, I propose to either retarget to New Rome (disambiguation), or DABify with Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Third Rome, and Italian Empire. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost town tornado

[edit]

Ambigious, plenty of towns hit by tornadoes have become ghost towns, https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/tornado-ghost-towns-20130321 NotAGenious (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Why is this even a discussion? This redirect makes no sense. I'm sorry but it should be deleted because ???. Has nothing ti do with the article either.
This0k (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@This0k: It does; Picher, OK was declared a ghost town not long after the tornado as a result of its impact. EF5 03:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not the only one so if anything this should be Disambiguated into multiple other tornados but regardless should not just have one target. This0k (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multivariant testing

[edit]

Term not at target; term is mentioned at Software testing tactics and A/B testing, but could seemingly refer to any of the topics at Multivariate testing (disambiguation). Not sure what's best here. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Roman Empire

[edit]

I have no idea what this is supposed to contrast to. Veverve (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could figure out quite easily by clicking on New Roman Empire, Veverve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"New Roman Empire" is not mentioned anywhere at the target... Also, as a sidenote, aren't the Byzantine empire and the Holy Roman Empire the two well-known claimants to this title of New Roman Empire, instead of modern Italy? And what about the Third Rome claims? Veverve (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I presume they are saying that the Old Roman Empire is often searched for since there is already a redirect for the New Roman Empire.
This0k (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the Roman colonial empire of the Roman Republic; the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire; the post-Republic East+West Roman Empire. Contrasts with the New Roman Empire. This is a succession of the evolution of the Roman Empire, from colonial empire adjunct to a republic, to the conversion of the republic into rule by Caesars, to the collapse of the west and the eastern rump Roman Empire being called the Byzantine Empire by Western European scholarship (though politically, it is the same entity as that before the collapse of the western portion) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as is. It seems obvious to me that this phrase is used to contrast the original Roman Empire with the Byzantine Empire or other states claiming to be successors to the Roman Empire. It is not an especially common phrase, and does not seem to have a more specific meaning in academic use, such as the empire of the Roman Republic, the Principate, or the Dominate. Thus "Roman Empire" is the best target. P Aculeius (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castilleja chromosa

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

Redirects from other languages to United States

[edit]
  1. Portuguese
  2. Japanese
  3. Russian
  4. Russian
  5. French
  6. German

All of these were recently created and I tagged several others for speedy deletion based on previous discussions that resulted in deletion, but these did not have previous discussions. Delete as redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (point 8 of WP:R#DELETE)/per WP:RFOREIGN. I also CSD taggedHey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete all per nom. not in the mood to do this again. what the hell is a portuguese cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of them per nom and WP:RLOTE. Also @Hey man im josh I think you included ভাৰত by accident, that redirect targets to India. However, I'm not sure about Estados Unidos da América which is the Portuguese translation. We do have Estados Unidos which was kept at RfD previously as the Spanish language has an affinity with the U.S., being the second most spoken language there. We also have Estados Unidos de América which is the Spanish translation. I'm leaning towards delete since Portuguese doesn't have much of an affinity with the U.S. but just wanted to note this.
Fathoms Below (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh, yeah, I gotta take it slower sometimes. I'm removing that one to India, thanks for pointing this out @Fathoms Below. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... would i consider a single letter in a possessive article to be a significant enough difference that it changes a redirect from a language with strong affinity to one with no affinity beyond how much people want to bang jetstream sam? absolutely cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom but keep the Spanish redirect in all cases. America speaks Spanish, right? 67.209.128.30 (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects. with periods following "the"

[edit]

These all seem to be quite WP:UNNATURAL typos or replacements. For the first 2, I can't find any evidence that it's a stylization or the like. mwwv converse∫edits 14:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: For the first 2: These are encoded format names, with spaces substituted with periods/dots/fullstops. It is an affectation of some methods for encoding spaces in URLs by some pieces of software -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Scene is stylized as the.scene in episode intros, see Youtube S01E01. bbx (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber Jerks (Ren & Stimpy Show)

[edit]

Typo article names that were moved to be fixed; too impractical to not deserve deletion. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both per WP:CHEAP. These redirects are harmless, unambiguous (even without the "the" in the show's title, they still lead exactly where promised), and potentially helpful. I can't really see why just "Ren & Stimpy Show" as opposed to "The Ren & Stimpy Show" is impractical—it's just another plausible way to quote the show's title (for instance, Ren & Stimpy Show is a redirect to the page about the show). Regards, SONIC678 16:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep neither of these two are typos. One uses "The" the other strips "The" from the namestring; that seems like a good use for redirects to me. Ren & Stimpy Show is a bluelink; and no other topic uses the "The"-less name -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as redirects left from moves, and there for about 6 months, which is long enough that it's probably reasonable to keep, even if otherwise unneeded. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vettukathi

[edit]

a south indian cutty boy (that's the formal term, right?), apparently mostly used to cut coconuts. seemingly probably notable on its own, but it's not mentioned in the article, and doesn't even seem to be a type of machete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson (soccer)

[edit]

Ambiguous target, as there are multiple association football/soccer players with surname Johnson, as per List of people with surname Johnson. No evidence that people would be primarily looking for a 1904 Olympian (when the Olympics was not a big deal) over any other soccer player with that surname. Retarget to List of people with surname Johnson#Sports or delete would be better. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calicrat

[edit]

while likely a plausible r from alternative scientific name or something, it's unmentioned, and results only gave me a brand of adult juices (i think it's booze, at least) and a list of words that rhyme with "matpat" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The word appears to be documented as a synonym for ant in The Endangered English Dictionary: Bodacious Words Your Dictionary Forgot, p. 30 (the only evidence of it I could find), but without any other use of it anywhere, I'm having trouble thinking of it as a reasonable redirect. Still, might be useful for someone reading "calicrat" in an old book and wondering what it means, so not too sure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The fact that it appears in the Endangered English Dictionary is a bad omen. OED has an entry, though the definition is under a paywall. The etymology section says "The only known use of the noun calicrat is in the late 1500s." So, no, I don't think it is a scientific name or anything of that sort. WP:RDELETE's obscure synonym clause appears here. Ca talk to me! 23:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Exactly one documented actual usage I could find ever, and it's from 1596. Oxford seems to concur with this. So we're talking about one line from one poem of no note written by one passably notable poet in the 1590s. The only context it's ever been used in outside of that as best I can tell (about 10 minutes' worth of searching) is Grambs 1994 and a select few obscure websites piggybacking off of Grambs 1994 by defining it as well. There's zero reason to think anyone would be stymied by this word's meaning and search it on Wikipedia. We wouldn't even include this on Wiktionary, which is extremely generous with arcahic words, because it fails inclusion criteria. WP:CHEAP, sure, but this is so implausible as to be literally worthless. (Also, this has nothing to do with scientific naming; this was over 100 years before Linnaeus was born.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a poetic term for ant, definitely not a hapax legomenon, as attested by this 1896 poem. Jamieson wrote about it in his dictionary (1, 2), as have others since. Redirects are cheap, but a mention in the Callicrates article might suffice. Neodop (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know a lot of obscure English terms thanks to Wiktionary, and if it took me a massive amount of digging on the internet just to get a hint as to what it means then it's too obscure for Wiktionary - let alone something as notability-driven as ENWP Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP per Neodop. It is conceivable that someone finds it an old book and understandably looks it up in the encyclopedia to see what this felid species they haven't heard of if. And they will bc helped. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 12:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The obvious reason here is if it is another name for Ant then this redirect will help that person who is looking for it. Edit: Actually delete, it will hardly come up for it to be searched regardless and doesn't link to anything noteworthy aside from user pages.This0k (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made-up pseudo-neologism per 35.139.154.158. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N00b

[edit]

I thought of retargeting this redirect to Leet#n00b, but i think it's best to ask for consensus first before doing so. You have two choices: either keep this redirect as it is now, or retarget it to Leet#n00b as i wanted. This redirect should not be deleted. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you can't tell me what to do, i vote to retarget to my talk page!!
just kidding, retarget to leet#n00b, even though the section should be called (v)<><>)3 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

[edit]

Morgan & Claypool

[edit]

Nomination on behalf of Phoebe, who blanked the page with the edit summary, take out redirect, this is incorrect. M&C was an independent publisher that went out of business in 2022. Some of their titles (the Synthesis content) went to SpringerNature. They copublished with IOP on some titles, but not all of them Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Atypon. Considering they are under Ig Publishing I am genuinely confused as to why it was under IOP publishing in the first place. Would @Phoebe agree? The issue is that it isn't mentioned oce there but it seems Morgan and claypool are from Ig Publishing. Edit: Their website was actually partnered with Atypon as seen here, so maybe Atypon is a better redirect than Ig publishing.
This0k (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Bartlett

[edit]

Ambigious, no reliable sources with such name NotAGenious (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fountin pen

[edit]

Implausible typo. This redirect has received less than 20 pageviews throughout its entire existence. Also, fountin does not exist as a redirect to fountain. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, phonetic misspelling; "fountain" is pronounced fowntĭn (faʊntɪn) to rhyme with tin, so this is very plausible for an ESL speaker. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cremastra. Even for native speakers, they might think fountin is some sort of brand name; plausible mondegreen. Ca talk to me! 14:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clone character

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not even exclusive to fighting games, and i doubt clone would be a good target cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The: Mahabharata

[edit]

Haven't been able to find anywhere where a colon is used after the "the". mwwv converse∫edits 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cisidentity

[edit]

Wiktionary or their equivalent -gender articles? LIrala (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing the point of those redirects but redirecting to Wiktionary seems unlikely to be helpful. It seems like they should both link to the articles but maybe I'm missing the point here? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal The point of the redirects? The terms are more used academically in journals or activist writing in English, and are the literal translations of the terms French Wikipedia uses in the mainspace titles, probably because of WP:NOUN policies plus the terms being more formal in French. Cisidentity, specifically, seems to be a protologism. I guess people redirect them to Wiktionary because the terms are not mentioned in the main articles. Though recently some egregious groups started using them to mean "cisid" and "transid". LIrala (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they should be mentioned in the main articles then? I'm not sure to what extent French terminology should guide us but if redirecting to Wiktionary makes more sense for reasons that I'm not getting then that's fine. I do think that both should do the same thing though. It's confusing if parallel terms are treated differently. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and understand your confusion. I have the same opinion of yours. LIrala (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant man

[edit]

Which is right? LIrala (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that both should link to the same place and that should be Transgender pregnancy. The section in Male pregnancy deals with two largely theoretical matters before very briefly getting on to things that actually exist in the real world. It doesn't even link to Transgender pregnancy, which is the most likely topic that the reader is actually looking for. Transgender pregnancy is much more likely to give the reader what they want and expect. I guess the other target might be acceptable if that section was substantially improved and included a link to Transgender pregnancy but, as it stands, the first redirect sends readers off to a poorly written section that doesn't give them what they are most likely looking for. This is likely to confuse and frustrate them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would duplicate it -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

学研プラス

[edit]

Non-Latin characters should not be used as article titles on Wikipedia languages with Latin alphabet, including the English one, even as redirect. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clariniie Please read WP:FORRED. mwwv converse∫edits 15:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per forred, redirects from other languages (regardless of what their funny scribbles look like) are fine... but only if the target has any strong affinity with said language. as an example of the type of redirect that should be deleted, meowth has a different name in portuguese (miau... which is literally just "meow"), but that doesn't mean an article on something from a japanese franchise should have this redirect. there's also the issue of brazil not being real, i guess
yes, by the way, this means keep cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh wait nvm, that's "gakken plus", which isn't mentioned in the article (outside of a site that happens to be tucked in the references). delete as unmentioned cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poe

[edit]

When searching for PoE without the proper capitalization (which I think is reasonable), you end up on the page Edgar Allan Poe Wiktorpyk (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Laws of Time Are Mine

[edit]

Delete. This was originally categorised as a meme, but the meme-related categories were removed as unjustified. The redirect is a quotation from a TV episode, which is noted at the fan wiki https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Waters_of_Mars_(TV_story) but not mentioned in the target Wikipedia article. Redirect's creator was blocked as a sock, and most of their other creations have been deleted. – Fayenatic London 12:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete brief mentions in sources but nothing really worth adding to the article. Doesn't appear to be too significant overall. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ascensorium

[edit]

results gave me "things that make you go up" in general, but mostly hiking equipment. mentioned in #terminology as a synonym for spiral stairs, but it seems the meaning has been changed cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Online search for me only shows stairs and latin/polish results. Ca talk to me! 01:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 12:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable Squirrel Carcass

[edit]

Should be deleted as it is not mentioned in target and is orphaned. Previously an article for a talk show that was redirected due to lack of notability. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Positive and negative test cases

[edit]

Doesn't seem specific to software testing, and the term is not described there. A better target may be test case, but it still might be a bit WP:XYish. Negative test is a disambiguation page; positive test redirects to Medical test#Positive or negative. Not sure what's best here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC) Note this redirect is the result of a single line stub that was immediately redirected. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through False positives and false negatives, which discusses tests that can be falsely negative or falsely positive, they would be a form of Binary classification in general. I was thinking in a DAB, but these concepts are very similar to each other, except for the software tests, which also adds Stress testing (software), linked in the negative test dab. LIrala (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Positive and negative predictive values. LIrala (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear target and little enough page views so that it wouldn't be a big issue to delete it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby, Mdewman6, Mwwv, and Significa liberdade: WP:HEY: I just created Positive and negative (disambiguation). It could look a bit like a WP:COATRACK though I guess in some way that's how a dab works, but anything that isn't ambiguous can be removed from there. Note that Positive or negative test redirect exists. LIrala (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the dab, seems solid, but in terms of this redirect, it seems like something that should be listed their if a primary meaning can be identified, and not retargeted there as ambiguous. I would be okay with targeting test case which mentions both positive test case and negative test case (though the individual terms are not redirects). Otherwise, this should just be deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lymbriciform

[edit]

won't argue that it's not a plausible spelling of lumbriciform, but shouldn't it be retargeted to lumbricidae? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should note while i'm at it that i'll create lumbriciform after this discussion is closed and if it's not closed as delete (for any reason not related to its plausibility as a tpyo) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Lumbriciform" is a descriptor for a general shape (which is, well, worm-shaped) rather than a scientific classification, so targeting it to "worm" makes more sense here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKO

[edit]

Delete or Keep Not mentioned at the target. 120.29.79.37 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

was gonna say "delete per nom", but i'm pretty sure proxies count in sockstrike, so... delete per meeeeeee~
see also the edit history and this afd discussion cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spore game space phase

[edit]

For a redirect created all the way back in 2009, the title I can't agree with; Shouldn't it be "Spore space stage?" Also the category assigned to this redirect makes absolutely no sense, I played this game and didn't have online multiplayer. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – old redirect, not an egregiously implausible search term, and with an unambiguous target. If you want to create Spore space stage, you can do that regardless of whether this redirect exists. I agree that the category should be removed. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as downright clunky. this reads less like something you'd expect on wikipedia and more like a pile of tags in a booru. no opinion on creating spore space stage, or similar redirects for all the other stages cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have no clue why thus exists either. This0k (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

[edit]

Damehar, Himachal Pradesh

[edit]

There is a town called Domehar in Himachal Pradesh, but given that it is 150 km from Mandi, the redirect doesn't seems appropriate. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Damehar, Himachal Pradesh, shows up on the Weather Network here: https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/city/in/himachal-pradesh/damehar/7-days, and is a seperate entity from Domehar. Hilly towns in Himachal aren't reported on - but this one is in the district of Mandi. As someone with familial heritage from here, I guarantee you it does exist and town signs and borders are there which i could upload on wikimedia commons. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

:Keep. May not get a mention, but simply searching jackask on google would pull up with Jacksfilms TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beedeas

[edit]

results gave me miscellaneous companies, a shade of cyan (or is it turquoise?), and i guess a waterfall. the literal only result i got that was related to parrot was in the free dictionary... as a redirect to parrot, meaning there's no chance in hell i'm finding out where the term even comes from. not mentioned in wiktionary either cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the redirect was created on wikipedia in 2005, and the freedictionary redirect was likely significantly after (based on the internet archive), it's more likely created in error or not a term anyone is searching for in English. Hihyphilia (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transphobia in the US House of Representatives

[edit]

I feel like this is a broader topic, a bit misleading to target it to a specific instance. JayCubby 19:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bill is not called "Transphobia in the US House of Representatives" by any people. I agree with 35.139. Ca talk to me! 23:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template as a redirect with possibilities. The broader topic has possibilities for development, but for now the target article cites reliable sources that indicate the topic has been noteworthily identified as a case of transphobia/anti-trans bigotry in the United States House of Representatives. If it is not templated, keep. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amboss

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

The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle

[edit]

{{R from merge}}, however there are (from what I can interpret) two misspellings and two miscapitalizations, so this seems very implausible. I am neutral on moving its history somewhere else. mwwv converse∫edits 17:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra (Algiers) will

[edit]

Absurdly unlikely typo. Not used in any article,. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, implausible typo. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the target article doesn't describe a will, and I don't see what the title could possibly refer to. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baraxk

[edit]

Unlikely misspelling for Barack. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shampoodle

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thong (footballer, born 1973)

[edit]

Implausible search terms. Redirects left over from misguided moves back in 2019, which were promptly reverted. While Thai people are commonly informally referred to by their nickname, no one would ever expect to identify a person by nickname alone. These redirects are akin to having David (footballer, born 1975) redirect to David Beckham. Paul_012 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HammerHead (company)

[edit]

Barely mentioned in target article for its existence. Obscure company which developed four games and is not notable for any more than that, and there is no suitable redirect target with sufficient info on the company. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:35, 4 December 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 14:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. no sources in the history, so it's not worth keeping cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O'Doyle Rules

[edit]

The text is not mentioned in the redirect target, so the redirect should be deleted. This has been discussed at Talk:Billy Madison#O'Doyle Rules. Graham87 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 SA20

[edit]

No relevant information at the target, making this is a misleading redirect. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 13:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete until at least late '25. i barely have money to sustain my garlic addiction, and i don't want to add crystal balls to my already outrageous bills cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Goodness

[edit]

Isn't that a bit too vague to be specific too a play? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What's the primary topic here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Repeat after me...Wiktionary redirects are BAD. This one is especially bad. Native speakers do not need to look up the meaning of such a common phrase. Non-native speakers shouldn't be looking up meanings in an encyclopedia; they should use a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's claimed immediately above that this isn't the primary topic, but then what is? We have no encyclopedic content about the phrase itself, so it can't be that by default. We do have a mention of this as a song title, which is at least something. Delete it if you must, but soft redirects to Wikt should really be avoided...what would even be the point of this one? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS. The song is the only topic in English Wikipedia by this exact name. Literally every single other one of the 260 hits in Special:Search/~"Thank Goodness" is either a WP:PTM or a coincidental use of the phrase in the title of a source cited. There's nothing to disambiguate here. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS, as the only target with this capitalization. I will not repeat after IP above, as I do not agree that wiktionary links are default bad, but we have a better target here, and it's the target we already have. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Consensus against deletion, but there was a surge of support for retargeting, and then a surge of support for keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 13:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argufying

[edit]

Looking at wikt:argufy, this term has more to do with disputes and disagreements than a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. But I can't find an appropriate place to retarget it – apparently, we don't have an article on the general concept of disputes. (Disagreement (epistemology) and Objection (argument) are far too specific and theoretical, Dissent is only about disputes against authority, and Controversy is about a broad public state of affairs.) Another possibility is to target William Empson, who wrote Argufying: Essays on Literature and Culture (1987). jlwoodwa (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, i just made it since it was a synonym. CheeseyHead (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casara

[edit]

Disambiguate between the three surnames that meet the bar to be disambiguated in my view: Tristan Casara, Danny Casara, and Chico Casara. Alternatively delete, even though search results aren't the best. J947 ‡ edits 03:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Square

[edit]

The current target is undoubtedly the overwhelming favourite for readers using this term, over New Square, West Bromwich, New Square, Almaty, New Square Publications, and Lincoln's_Inn#New_Square_Lawn. A slew of translations of this term into other languages are encyclopaedic things: Plaza Nueva, Praça Nova, Nytorv, and Plac Nowy.

Disambiguation in some form is required: the question is whether this disambiguation should be carried out at New Square or at New Square (disambiguation). I lean towards the former. J947 ‡ edits 03:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finario

[edit]

Delete as ambiguous with Damian of Finario and Battista dei Giudici. These three minor details do not between them warrant a disambiguation page, and search results will do the job quicker and more simply than hatnotes. J947 ‡ edits 02:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penthouse Suite

[edit]

Whilst obviously quite similar to penthouse apartment, I believe there's sufficient fuel to disambiguate this WP:DIFFCAPS-differentiated term – between "The Penthouse Suite" at the current target, the Lord T & Eloise song in the album Aristocrunk, the James Taylor Quartet album, and the radio station mentioned in passing at Hotel Baker. J947 ‡ edits 02:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford station

[edit]

Disambiguate with MOD Stafford and Stafford power station. J947 ‡ edits 02:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - the railway station is the correct choice here, based off both gut instinct and online search results BugGhost 🦗👻 23:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Fair Grounds

[edit]

This is ambiguous. Google Maps leads me to Zambia (the current target), Zimbabwe, and Malawi. Mentions on Wikipedia include Tanzania, Malta, India, and various German cities.

Disambiguate appears to be the safe bet in this instance, but there are a few complicating factors. While this is a common appendix to the name of a venue, in many cases it is a PTM. Additionally, this is a very frequent second name for a venue that we may or may not list as an alternative name on the relevant article. In general, this term varies between being a description and a genuine name for a place, meaning that a dab page that covers everything is near impossible. There are also trade show, Fairground, and the redirect Trade Fair Ground to be aware of. J947 ‡ edits 02:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virose

[edit]

Portuguese for virus, or a uncommon adjective in English meaning poisonous or fetid. Delete? Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This link gets a hit once every three to four days, and if that's people looking for the English definition of virose then a soft redirect to wikt:virose could be appropriate, but if it's people looking for virus in Portuguese then it would better to delete as there's no particular affinity between the language and the topic. I'd lean delete as I'd rather not guess and search results has a Wiktionary link anyways. ― Synpath 15:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no particular affinity with the Portuguese language --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
eh... sort of. it's actually portuguese for "virosis", but no one really cares about the difference. that aside, delete, as i still haven't found any evidence of brazil's existence, much less of viruses and virosises having any particular affinity with it or portugal cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forked Decision Path Well, this all depends on why people are accessing this page every 3-4 days. If they're looking for a definition of the English term virose, then soft redirect to wikt:virose. If, on the other hand, they're looking for virus in Portugese, then delete due to WP:FORRED Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Soft Retarget per WP:FORRED. In the other case, Virose is an uncommon word and the users may be looking for a defintiion. Ca talk to me! 12:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Simara (1945)

[edit]

"Simara" not mentioned anywhere at target, and the battle described at the target took place in 1944. There is a battle described at Corcuera#Modern history to which this may refer, but the term isn't used there either. Unless there is evidence this is a term in use, the fact this is disambiguated and the base name Battle of Simara does not currently exist suggests deletion may be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of Leyte Gulf and took place in October 1944, not 1945. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Langauge

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

Delete. The existence of these three redirects, as explained in previous RfDs, actively obstructs the effectiveness of the MediaWiki search engine. "Langauge" is a very common typo and misspelling, which counterintuitively means that the existence of these three redirects is problematic. The best way that this can be explained is by comparing the helpfulness of the search results for French langauge and French lagnuage. The "lagnuage" one is significantly more helpful in directing the reader to French language. The existence of word misspellings in page titles 'throw' the search engine, so to speak.

The aim of {{R from misspelling}}s is often to get around the drawbacks of the MediaWiki search function, but in this situation these misspellings accomplish precisely the opposite function. It appears as if the introduction of Vector 2022 has not significantly ameliorated this problem. Alternative solutions to deletion tend to be quite drastic: making these redirects soft, or having a bot create a "langauge" redirects for all corresponding "language" titles. Making redirects like this exempt from Search is the ideal solution, but one that cannot be implemented with any magic word as of yet. J947 ‡ edits 00:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

[edit]

Gerecter

[edit]

Does not appear to be relevant to the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thrustship

[edit]

The term "Thrustship" is not mentioned nor defined on the target page. The article that brought me it is also the only content page that links to it. Therefore, unless "Thrustship" is considered notable, there seems to be no good reason for this redirect to exist. ZFT (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R&B

[edit]
  • Retarget to Contemporary R&B.

As said on talk page, absolutely barely any articles say "Contemporary R&B" when referring to "Contemporary R&B" they just say "R&B". Having this re-direct stops lots of frustration of people redirecting to the Rhythm and Blues genre when it is a Contemporary R&B song. Please see here on how Contemporary R&B is mentioned, it's the modern day now and Contemporary R&B has gained far more notability and is now the WP:COMMONNAME and look at most Contemporary R&B article you'll notice most publications simply wrote "R&B" when citing Contemporary R&B.Eg HotNewHipHop,Billboard,The Guardian.This0k (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

This can't have one target. The nom's propose change will also frustrate people; also, their rationale seems partially based on WP:RECENTISM. I will draft a disambiguation page. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Donald Trump

[edit]

Retarget to Cat:Criticism of Donald Trump as {{R to category namespace}}. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 21 November 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) 15:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete, keep, or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent

[edit]

There is no evidence that a primary topic has been specified. Kolano123 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep All of the incoming links appear to be using "Recent" in its geological definition (i.e., as a synonym for Holocene). I do think there is a point to be made about the geological definition not being the "primary topic," so to speak. But I'm hesitant to delete since the "primary" definition isn't getting wikilinked at the moment. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Appears to be used for convenience in a narrow set of articles. Thsi redirect is unlikely to cause the confusion (as we are unlikely to have an article about the word itself, which would be the primary meaning). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Викидим (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete, although I'm not unsympathetic to the cleanup that would require. Maybe someone could use AWB or a bot to automate the process, but I don't know if that's more trouble than it's worth. This seems to be used in a bunch of taxoboxes in a technical sense, but far more often, it's done better, with "Recent" as a piped link to Holocene instead of relying on the redirect (see e.g. Giraffe). I don't think it's appropriate to carve out a redirect for a technical sense of an everyday word to use like this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • soft redirect to wikt:recent, where the holocene period is ironically not directly mentioned. would it be per nom?
and yeah, maybe use the good ol' pipe links. there's surprisingly not that many incoming links in mainspace, so it'd be easy to deal with cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:17, 28 November 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) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep on the grounds that Presidentman and Викидим point out. Since it's unlikely there will ever be much call for an encyclopedic article about the word "recent" itself (as Wikipedia isn't a dictionary), we don't seem to be primed to have competition for this target. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur home page

[edit]

The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.

Target contains no information about "Amateur" home pages specifically. Ca talk to me! 01:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect just reads like someone complaining about either our home page (which is like that for simplicity's sake) or someone else's home page (which we have no control over). Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Delete fail to see relevance of redirect. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with Amateur home page, and tagged the third redirect (Amatuer home page), which wasn't tagged by the nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per all above. pretty funny that the last one has a lowercase redirect. i was sure the system would just ignore that. the co- uh, gears, of my head are beginning to turn... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 01:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Page

[edit]

Vanishingly few page views per month(21) for a page that gets millions of views every week. There are a lot of people named "Mian Page", and Mediawiki already corrects for simple typos like this. Ca talk to me! 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible. KOLANO12 3 20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason why this should even exist in the first place. ThatIPEditor They / Them 21:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(comment: "and Mediawiki already corrects for simple typos like this" I tested this now, it doesn't.)
Weak delete Unlike what some others are saying, I can relatively plausibly see someone accidentally transposing the I and A keys together. However, this is literally the first page you see when you open up Wikipedia we're talking about here, so people manually going to the Main Page is irrelevant here. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a person can just type the right words in themselves. BarntToust 14:55, 3 December 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! 22:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per pageviews (so per nom, I suppose). That the target receives a high number of views doesn't change anything. This also seems unambiguous as a search term. I don't know what someone searching this could be looking for other than the main page; I'm not seeing any people called "Mian Page" that we cover. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haifan Baháʼí Faith

[edit]

again, obscure, and where used, it is perjorative. Smkolins (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haifan Baháʼís

[edit]

obscure and where used, a pejorative use Smkolins (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DEVS VVLT

[edit]

I think this a rather implossable misspelling of this term. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments

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

Goth (Silverwing)

[edit]

This no longer has a mention and the redirect is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nueva Hampshire

[edit]

Seems to be a fail of WP:RLANG, but I am not too confident. Weak Delete? -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Half of the current U.S., including Dakotas, at some point were part of Spanish colonization of the Americas before Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. And given that USA doesn't have an official language and Spanish is the second most spoken, both redirects are justified. Web-julio (talk) 09:27, 16 November 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) 04:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Neither meets WP:RLANG in my opinion. I'm unconviced by the mere fact that many people in the U.S. speak Spanish to justify keeping here. (Many people in the U.S. also speak French, for example, but neither Nouveau Hampshire nor Dakota du Nord exist). In regards to North Dakota's supposed affinity to Spanish, that's spurious at best. There was never a place known as "Dakota del Norte" under Spanish rule, which in this case would have been limited to the brief era of Spanish Louisiana. (Assuming you count claiming Indigenous land as "ruling" it). No sustained European settlement occurred in the region until well after the U.S. acquired the territory. Even then, Dakota Territory was one entity until 1889. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target and creator pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musha-gaeshi

[edit]

curved walls, built to be "a little hard to climb". unmentioned in the target and wiktionary, though it does have some mentions in articles related to japanese castles cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save battery

[edit]

i know what this means... but the article doesn't mention it in detail (only in passing as an image's caption), or anything to clarify that it doesn't mean methods of saving battery energy. not directly mentioned at volatile memory either cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not about NVRAM backup battery, or CMOS clock backup battery, or battery saver apps, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has a mention here (even if only in an image caption) and it has the potential to be discussed here in much more detail. I don't think CMOS clock backup batteries have ever been called "save" batteries, that should be pretty restricted to the domain of "saving your game" if I'm not mistaken. Theoretically, this could be searched for with the intent of finding methods of preserving battery life, but I think written this way (as opposed to the next RfD entry, below) it is much more clear that it refers to using a battery to enable saving your game in a ROM cartridge. Fieari (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What it's ultimately getting at is more general than game cartridges. Any device with battery-backed volatile RAM would be covered by this, not just game carts. And even then, "save battery" is kind of vague and could refer to other things anyway. And as per nom, there's no significant discussion at the target anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

polypifer

[edit]

refers to organisms formed from polyps, including but not limited to coral. suggest retargeting there. no opinion on the plausibility of the second redirect cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic term that I see used in older texts to refer to corals. However, what's more relevant for us is Richard Dawkins' book The Ancestor's Tale in which he notes that "coral" is ambiguous between the organisms themselves and the hard stuff their colonies leave behind. He ressurects the older term "polypifer" to refer to the organisms. Thus, it would seem that coral polyp is the optimal target. But that page redirects to the nom's proposed target, which discusses polyps generally, not just those of corals, I think. The problem is that Polyp (zoology) discusses polyps generally, unrestricted to corals while coral discusses much more about corals than the living polyps themselves. Sigh. Refining to Coral#Anatomy could be quite nice, and I think I prefer that target over the nom's proposal, which is my second choice. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the second redirect is plausible enough. Should follow wherever Polypifer ends up going. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:33, 11 December 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion isn't really getting any comments, I might as well throw my two cents in and say weak delete. Raad already exists as a disambiguation and there really isn't any suitable target for the exact title. Alternatively, retarget to Raad since that's the actual disambiguation. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try, since there's only really been one relist's worth of discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

regional screwdrivers

[edit]

two different yet similar cases. "birmingham screwdriver" is an apparently obscure uk slang for hammer, as a reference to people from birmingham being muscleheads, while "irish screwdriver" seems to be... some brand of vodka? both terms are unmentioned in the target, and results mostly gave me miscellaneous companies and actual screwdrivers cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should note that the second one is mentioned and elaborated on in law of the instrument cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador scuba diving

[edit]

no particular affinity with ecuador, from what i can gather. originally created as an ad cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTF-2000

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

Delete. Non-notable subject that is not mentioned anymore in the redirect target article. See old AfD. Nidaana (talk) 15:23, 23 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, CycloneYoris talk! 09:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. pre-blar history had no reliable sources. if someone wants to recreate it, they can, but as is, i'm not feeling it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can confirm this project exists, or at least existed, but there seem to be no non-primary sources about it (at least in English) meaning it is not eligible for an article. The target destination provides no information about the subject, and is unable to do so without a secondary source. However, it would be interesting and useful information to put in the target article, as to be perfectly honest, I'd love to see a section about oppositional efforts to Han unification in the project. But... without secondary commentary, we can't really add it. The page history, stub as it was, does has useful content if a secondary source could be found, and I'm loathe to delete it as an eternal optimist. All in all though, deletion is pretty permanent-- I'd rather leave it as a BLAR, simply hoping that a secondary source could be found somewhere, perhaps on the Japanese side of the web (my Japanese is only intermediate, I don't think I'm good enough to find it). The problem with leaving it as a redirect though, is that... again, we have no information on the subject. I wish there was some way to preserve the history without maintaining the redirect. A frustrating situation. Fieari (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    how about userifying? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userify old content per @Cogsan, and redirect target to the userified page Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i disagree with the xnr part cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcenet

[edit]

an alternate spelling of "sarsenet", a type of silk fabric. unmentioned in the target, though there are mentions of both spellings in other articles (but only two incoming links), and it gets steady views, so maybe there's a more fitting target i'm missing? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LTS

[edit]

Suggesting retargeting to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#LTS, where Wikipedia:Long-term significance already targets. This is because WP:Recentism is only an essay page that mention "long-term significance" only once whereas WP:DAB is a guideline page and LTS is used very often in RM discussions. In fact, of the 6 incoming links from discussions, 5 use it in the context of WP:DAB, and only 1 use it in the context of Recentism, the current target. A hatnote at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#LTS to WP:Recentism may be added. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. I don't see good reason to prioritise the essay over the guideline here, and "LTS" seems a useful (and memorable) name for PT2, which would be helpful for citing it in discussions. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dionian(ism)

[edit]

Dionian is a translation of wikt:Dioning (heterosexual). It used to be mentioned in Uranian (sexuality), along with several terms coined by Karl. Apollonian and Dionysian could mention dionism, or Dionysus. If this means male homosexuality, then gay men? Or something similar to Achillean. See Terminology of homosexuality. --MikutoH talk! 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More "solider" redirects

[edit]

These redirects all have the same misspelling of "soldier," which was discussed in a previous RfD from last week. As its rationale says, "solider" is also the comparative form of "solid" and can also be a misspelling of at least several other words. Delete these unless someone can provide a justification or suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 05:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete all that don't have "solider" as the first or second word, as it's too much stuff to type before making a minro spleling mistkae
  • delete super solider, foot solider (rich homie quan song), solider with the green whiskers, and confederate solider as skill issues
  • retarget the tin solider to... the tin soldier
  • and i guess extremely weak keep the rest (which is... only stereo solider and child solider)
what a doozy... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The bare solider shouldn't reidrect to soldier, but all these are cases where "solider" is plainly a common typo for "soldier". In what context would someone be intentionally trying to find out how to make a child or Confederate more solid? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of saints (disambiguation)

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

Pekka Soini

[edit]

This is a redirect to species:Pekka Soini, but the target page does not exist. Wikispecies does mention them (in species:Amerotyphlops minuisquamus and species:Helicops yacu), but only as someone who collected a specimen, not a taxon authority – so if I'm understanding species:Help:Author Names correctly, species:Pekka Soini should not be created. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:35, 10 December 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 00:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Martin (herpetologist)

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

Spicier

[edit]

possible confusion with pungency, to which spicy redirects to? created by neelix, by the by cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible search term. Why would readers search for the comparative term instead of the non-inflected one? Ca talk to me! 10:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't considered wikilinks. In that case, I agree with 65. Ca talk to me! 01:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Qingyun

[edit]

No point in this redirect, her name is mentioned only twice here in a table. but she is also mentioned as a competitor/medalist in few other articles but none have enough content to anchor a redirect. Sports2021 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


December 9

[edit]

Denetric Malope

[edit]

unmentioned in the target. seemingly part of a running gag of redirects of south african models created by people with oddly similar editing patterns, including adding links to them to their user pages. really starting to think an spi is due cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nom. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
note: an article was created in its place by an ip editor, see the diff here. seems like some of the sources are reliable, but it seems equally, if not more promotional in nature. it also involved removing the rfd templates, which... there was just an spi about this exact thing, if this ip isn't a sock, i'll be surprised cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo

[edit]

Unclear if this is a good target for this title. For the last two years, it had redirected to turbocharger until a recent edit. Turbo does seem like it could be a common word for something "fast". Natg 19 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisina

[edit]

This target was unilaterally changed today by Duckmather. It previously targeted the article that Duckmather has renamed Lisina (Raška). While I would agree that this village stub isn't a good WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I don't think the person is either. In my opinion the disambiguation page (which needs to be fixed up regardless after this is decided) should live at the base name. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyrael: I had thought about moving the dab too, but then I looked at the pageview data and saw that Yekaterina Lisina came up on top. Duckmather (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does have significantly more views than the other entries, but that's not the only consideration for primary topic. I'm probably reading this wrong as I'm not used to the tool, but I think this indicates that almost no traffic to the page for Yekaterina Lisina is coming from the disambiguation page, so readers are not expecting to find her at just "Lisina". -- Fyrael (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mrvan

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

Hatnote

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

Delete, crossnamespace redirect from (article) to project page. It appears that the word "hatnote" was invented specifically for Wikipedia, there are no other stuff with that word and the internet underlined that word as a misspelling. Cyber the tiger (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dating style

[edit]

seems pretty confusing, what with both words referring to a lot of other things cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camera (conventional)

[edit]

no info on what makes a camera conventional or unconvential in the target, results for this and similar terms only gave me cameras you can feasibly hold with one hand cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also the previous discussion, which resulted in refining to the target section, which no longer exist. results seem to have been different back then too. would use the oldrfdlist template, but the visual editor doesn't like it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a "conventional camera" used to mean a 'photographic film visible light still camera', a 'traditional camera' ; something like a 35mm SLR, 24mm APS RF, 16mm RF, or a Kodak Brownie, etc. If we take that meaning, then it is a still camera used in analog photography; so perhaps retarget to analog photography? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It's not used, and is only there because a user once moved Camera to Camera (conventional) and I moved it back. I don't think "conventional" has any interpretable meaning there any more. Does it mean a camera that takes glass plates? A camera that takes film? A photographic still camera? A cell phone camera with only one lens? Conventions have changed a lot. According to Google's AI summary, "A conventional camera is a camera that captures blurred versions of a scene away from the plane of focus. When choosing a conventional camera, you can consider things like: Sensor type: CCD, DMOS, ICCD, SIT, or ISIT ... Frame rate and resolution: 24, 25, 30, 60, or 90", so it's not film, not still, not analog, but has a focusable lens. Book hits suggest that "conventional" is used to distinguish cameras that don't have whatever novel feature is being discussed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My initial thought was also to retarget to analog photography, as that's what "conventional camera" means in my head, but the arguments from Dicklyon above have convinced me that this is an ambiguous term unworthy of a DAB page for being, basically, arbitrary in scope. Fieari (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camera make

[edit]

what cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiedia

[edit]

admittedly on the weak side of noms, but could someone also be looking for wikimedia? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep) It's possible, but much more likely Wikipedia. Even if they aren't, they should see their error, so I don't think a hat note is necessary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Main Pag

[edit]

I personally think this is an implausible typo, as no one would perfectly type out the entire page name only to then forget the last "e" (I only found this in the first place because I was bored)

Even though there was history since 2011, it was always a redirect Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am aware that there was an RfD mentioning this redirect from 2019: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_23#Targeting_the_Main_Page
However, consensus can change Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenziidae

[edit]

Not monotypic: Paramackenzia exists. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IC1101-Capinatator: The standard is to simply change Mackenziidae to a family article from a redirect, discussion not needed.--Kevmin § 15:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Wikiemdia

[edit]

Implausible typo Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite AV media

[edit]

One of the many mainspace redirects that link to citation templates created by the same user. He has created many of them and I'm not in the mood for bundling so I might as well nominate one and see how that plays out. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was discussed in 2012, time to revisit it and get it deleted -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE #Cite web was nominated later today -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE It was closed as "no consensus to delete", which is elaborated on below. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while many results are for wikis many aren't so its not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The major CS1|2 templates should be frictionless reaching the documentation, anything we can to help editors figure out how to find and use these tempalates overrides any minor guideline technicality. Nobody has presented a practical reason why this redirect would be a hindrance, but there are strong arguments why it's useful to keep. Also I'm concerned by the sheer volume of RfDs by an infinity banned sock, which are then followed up by a single IP editor voting/arguing in support of the nom. -- GreenC 16:19, 23 November 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) 03:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an unnecessary WP:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There really is no reason to have a redirect from mainspace to a template. Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per GreenC. The Cite web RfD was once again closed as "no consensus" "no consensus to delete". I think it's practical to have these as they could improve sourcing without much downside. It's also a hassle to type in "Template:" each time, and I can never remember if the shortcut is "tm:", "tp:" or "tl:". (But I think "tl:" might be Tuvalan Tagalog Wikipedia, as I've made that mistake several times before). BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is still not something any reader would want. Thus it should not exist in article-space. Article-space is WP:NOT a how-to guide to write articles on Wikipedia. The template page is most definitely a how-to guide to using the template, as it contains documentation . -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some readers are current or future editors, and even if they're not, seeing a search suggestion for "Cite (anything)" is not likely to discombobulate them. And even if they accidentally click on it there's always the back button. AV media is itself just a redirect to Audiovisual, and "Cite AV media" is not even a search suggestion in that case. You can even type "cite " (with a space) without any CNRs showing up. (Just to emphasise GreenC's point that it doesn't appear to be a hindrance.) BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other RfD closure seems inappropriate, without any relists, as "no consensus". Without relists, that seems very odd -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I asked CFA about that, and they wrote I closed it as "no consensus to delete", which is not the same as a general "no consensus" close. I was originally going to close as keep, but I felt that this was a better representation of the arguments presented, pointing to the fact that deletion — what the nominator was looking for — was very unlikely to happen (see WP:SNOW). Common practice is generally to delete non-Wikipedia-specific cross-namespace redirects from mainspace, so I weighted the IAR keep votes saying that they find it personally useful slightly less than I might've normally. Relisting may well have balanced out the numbers, but a consensus to delete was clearly not going to emerge so there was no point in keeping it open. I wasn't saying there was no consensus at all in the discussion, just that consensus for deletion was unlikely to happen. Quoted User:CFA - BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 11:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not a necessary (or even widely-used) xnr, templates generally aren't something readers will want to see. if they want to get into editing and templates, they can learn about namespaces when they get there cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Wikipedia Article

[edit]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Articles so this stops being an invalid soft redirect to a special page and stops sticking out as technically R2-eligible. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget both per nom. Yes it is a cross-namespace redirect, but it got over 6000 page views in last months. The proposed target leads readers to what they want. Ca talk to me! 10:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 11:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget both to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Articles per nom. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump nominations for independent agencies

[edit]

These have significant pre-merge edit history for Political appointments of the first Trump administration, but this title does not differentiate between first or second term. Not sure whether to redirect it to 1st term article or to the disambiguation page. Should we move it to a title mentioning "first presidency" without leaving a redirect? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 11:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Puffery inline

[edit]

{{Puffery}} now redirects to {{Promotional}}, so this should go to {{Promotional inline}}, for consistency. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 24 November 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) 14:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moseley tea service

[edit]

unmentioned. the section it targets to mentioned it as a type of cocktail named after moseley, but it's currently gone, so... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:31, 21 November 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) 15:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Term has not yet received mention at the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Republic (1946–1963) (disambiguation)

[edit]

Delete, the piling up of parentheses. Cuvaj (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's vomit on his sweater already

[edit]

Unlike "snap back to reality", this is a much less common line in this song that people are most likely not going to be searching for. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a pretty well known lyric, especially since it's before "mom's spaghetti". CheeseyHead (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Yeah, I did not know that. (Can you tell I'm not an Eminem fan? :P) Withdrawn Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as not the big notable part of the meme. there's spaghetti on his spaghetti alretti cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Knees weak arms spaghetti CheeseyHead (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ableist, I have autistic friends

[edit]

Unmentioned synonym. As prior consensus shows for this kinda stuff, delete. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not a deletionist, i've made plenty of keep votes. it just... happens that i happen to want this specific redirect deleted. per nom, that is, not for any personal reason cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah good point this has nothing to do with the target delete. Sorry for making a pointless redirect Anthony2106 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original creator's rationale: "same but with autism, probably won't get approved just trying to see if related sentences should have redirects, maybe to help with searching". If there is prior consensus opposing this per nom, no reason to keep. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While a keyword search using Google isn't a perfect way to gauge how noteworthy or in use a string of characters is, in this case it suggests that the phrase isn't in use, with most of the hits on the first page being from this very redirect and discussion thread. Moreover, while clearly a riff on the target, it doesn't clearly refer to or have to do with the target. (We don't redirect "Asian lives matter" to "Black lives matter", after all.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump the sequel

[edit]

The only sites that mention a sequel to Trump are non-notable extremely right-leaning websites Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as cool as it is that people can have sequels, donald trump 2: orange you glad he's back? isn't mentioned yet, so delete per nom cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> as cool as it is that people can have sequels, donald trump 2: orange you glad he's back? isn't mentioned yet
a quote for the books Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmm, let's have a look at the citations in order, even though i'm absolutely no expert on burgerland political systems
    1. doesn't directly refer to his second presidency as a sequel. rather, it seems to be about his wacky hijinks in the not burning the world department
    2. i guess "the trump sequel" is close enough
    3. evidently refers to it as a sequel as a joke, but it's probably good enough
    4. seems to refer to everything about the presidency and how people are handling it, except what the annoying orange will actually do. also evidently refers to those effects as a sequel as a joke, but it probably works
    5. "hollywood's trump resistance: the sequel" is not the same as "trump: the sequel"
    6. oh, it's an episode of a tv program. hate that that's how i finally pieced it together, but it's about that episode, and not necessarily the presidency
    overall, i'm starting to think a better option would be returning to red until that episode of panorama is covered, though an astronomically weak keep would work as a second option cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    wait, what do you MEAN that episode was released in march!? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primal Carnage: Evolution

[edit]

Evolution is not an alternative subtitle of Extinction, as this redirect implies, but rather an entirely different game in this series. I'm choosing to vote Delete unless we have better info on Evolution Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YV (rapper)

[edit]

We only have a passing mention of him in the target, and this redirect misleads potential YV fans into thinking we have more about him than we actually do Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"james s Welch jr"

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted as r3

National parks and monuments

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy deleted by Pppery

Scenic and Wild

[edit]

Without additional qualification, these terms seem a bit too broad and U.S.-centric to make good redirects to this specific topic. The ones lacking "river" in particular could refer to many different things. "National Scenic Waterways" is not a term described at target. Delete all. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carthaginian general Hasdrubal d. 207 B.C.

[edit]

Delete. We don't have redirects for each person with their year of death. Lucjim (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a plausible search term. Has a grand total of 100 views in ten years. Procyon117 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal lands in Alaska

[edit]

The target only includes federal lands that are part of the national park system, omitting large national forests and lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, among others. Delete to encourage article creation. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But like the redirect target, the stub is missing national forests, BLM lands, military lands, etc.. Not opposed to creating list articles at these titles of course, but until someone wants to undertake making a comprehensive list, these should be red. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The newly created list basically duplicates List of the United States National Park System official units#Alaska and related pages, is wildly incomplete since there's far more than NPS areas, and incorrectly includes sites that are affiliated but not actually federal land; this should draftified or also deleted. I don't think these should be hastily made just for the sake of it. Some states instead have a related list of protected areas that includes state lands. Reywas92Talk 04:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

[edit]

2026 Ballon d'Or

[edit]

Event is two years away. No relevant content in target article. Blethering Scot 20:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Lanka T10

[edit]

No mention of 2025 event in article. Event not for another year, and not yet notable. Blethering Scot 20:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Global Super League

[edit]

No mention of 2025 event in article. Event not for another year, and not yet notable. Blethering Scot 20:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian / moldovan language

[edit]

Delete. Poorly formatted and confusing redirect. Also no incoming links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucjim (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracism

[edit]

Target section vanished.

67.209.128.24 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There is no consensus on this nomination for too long. Suggesting relisting. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been 24 hours. Discussions typically stand for 7 days before being relisted. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove section target, or possibly re-refine - I can't find the edit where the specific section marker "Conspiracism" was removed, but from scanning the article, I would bet that it was reworded to the "conspiracy ideation" phrasing that appears throughout the article, and thus the information is still all here. We could refine to the Conspiracy theory#Psychology or Conspiracy theory#Sociology sections, but the entire article does kinda talk about this, so my first choice would actually be to just remove the section target altogether and leave it just targeted at the article as a whole. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTTOI

[edit]

Not listed at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete most, put a pin on kthnx, i'll see if i can find something for it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"HTH" and "HAND" are both listed at the target page. it makes sense to keep the redirect for the combined term. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The T,FTFY redirect page was not tagged for RfD. Done now, and this nomination has to be listed for at least 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria, Hilfe der Christen

[edit]

Redirect from the title in German, but the target doesn't seem to have anything to do with the country or language. Delete per WP:RLANG. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless incoming link is first updated. As it stands, it's a bit Easter-eggy. Might be better to modify the text to Maria-Hilf ([[Mary, Help of Christians]]) or just use the English term. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amongst whomst?

[edit]

Delete as unused, implausible typo. We might tolerate something like this with regard to mainspace (though I note that whomst is a redlink, and whom's target of Who (pronoun) has no mention of a "whomst"). A template redirect, however, exists for the sole purpose of use in transclusion. The target of this is a cleanup template, and an in-article call to that template, should read sensibly to any editor (or wikisource-curous reader) who encounters it. "Whomst" isn't a word in Modern English, but an obsolete form that was uncommonly used into the Early Modern period. No corresponding Template:Amongst whomst exists, and tacking on "?" doesn't somehow make this useful (otherwise we might as well have Template:Amongst whomst?? and Template:Amongst whomst???). wikt:whomst suggests (without any sources) that "whomst" is sometimes still employed for humorous effect, but WP is not a comedy site and more importantly our maintenance templates and their names don't serve a humor purpose (or an Elizabethan roleplay purpose). PS: Template:Amongst whom is fine, since amongst is still in frequent usage in the language.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC); revised 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was summoned here by a missive on mine talk-page; I would be hard-pressed to come up with any aspect of this that is important. Have we nothing more pressing, that this task shouldst be thine? Must we form a delineation of age beyond with none can use words? Surely Latin is older still, thereby whence "videlicet", "et alia" and "{{sic}} erat scriptum"? jp×g🗯️ 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't have anything to do with "pressingness". We should not keep templates that don't serve a practical purpose, as they are a systemic maintenance burden. Has nothing, either, to do with age of the term, but rather with lack of documented currency in Modern English; videlicet/viz., et alia/et al., and sic are (like Greek ergo which is even older) still used daily in the language, albeit largely in academic, legal, or other specialist literature. Whomst is not. We do not need a Template:Thou, Template:Thee, Template:Thy, and Template:Thine to go along with or redirect to Template:You, for the same reason Template:Amongst whomst? is nominated for deletion here. PS: You're kind of defeating your own argument by writing "shouldst be thine", etc. No one is going to take seriously that Elizabethan-era English norms have implications for our template redirect needs. The fact that any well-read native speaker can probably still parse it doesn't mean we need templates that use it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create something that you, personally, "take seriously" -- it is a collaborative project to write an encyclopedia. Is there a reason why writing an encyclopedia necessitates the active removal of template redirects that you dislike? jp×g🗯️ 06:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to do with what I "like". There are hundreds (at least) of redirects I don't like, but I would not nominate them for deletion because they don't qualify. This one does, since it is potentially confusing and to many will be nonsensical, it is a novel obscurity (though not technically a neologism, in resurrecting a dead word from the past), and it doesn't serve an editorially useful function (does not represent a common typo, or otherwise aid with linking attempts), and is not "a closely related word form" (it is not attested in any major dictionaries). We also do not keep non-English redirects (Russian, French, etc.) unless we have a technical need for them, and this qualifies as another language (Middle to Early Modern English).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep "Whomst" does still see a surprising amount of serious uses, although I just as equally wouldn't be opposed to a deletion as most of the time people just use that word as a point-and-laugh vehicle Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously "use ... as a point-and-laugh vehicle" != "serious use". As noted in the nomination statement, use for humorous effect has been cited already, but is not a keep rationale because of the nature of this site and especially of our cleanup/dispute templates. And use in jokey Internet meme is no connected to use in the sort of language that pertains to writing and maintaining an encyclopedia, so would not be relevant anyway. E.g., we have no use for Template:Source been ghosted or Template:Because facts redirects to Template:Citation needed, nor a Template:Yeet redirect for Template:db. WP isn't written in, or maintained internally by means of, Internet meme slang. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read:
    ""Whomst" does still see a surprising amount of serious uses, although I just as equally wouldn't be opposed to a deletion as most of the time people just use that word as a point-and-laugh vehicle"
    i.e: People sometimes use whomst seriously, but mostly it's just a humorous term User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no reliably sourced evidence of any "amount of serious uses".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not everyone knows what whomst means. Template shortcuts should be understandable to most. Ca talk to me! 13:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wikt:en:whomst is real and proper English. It is not a shortcut, it is a valid alternate spelling -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not. Proof: Use the OneLook dictionary search aggregator and search for "whomst" there [9]. You find that not one major English-language dictionary (that is online-accessible) includes this word, only Wikitionary does (without any sourcing), and we cannot rely on it even if it did have sourcing, per WP:UGC and WP:CIRCULAR. Contrast that with the OneLook results for "whom" [10], which turns up in every dictionary you've probably ever heard of and many you won't have. But feel free to quote from any 20th-century or later offline dictionary you can find that does include this word but does not indicate obsolete or archaic. I'll wait.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't using archaic language. It isn't using Chaucer's English though, so it is perfectly readable. It is English and not Anglish. It is using "amongst" after all, and that is also archaic. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do not use this "Whatever idea I have in my head must be the truth" approach to writing mainspace content. "Amongst" is not archaic at all, but used daily by innumerable English speakers, especially in the UK. This is demonstrable in just a few moments of research (though anyone familiar with more than one dialect of English would already know of its usage). Using the same dictionary search aggregator [11], you find that amongst is not listed as "archaic" or "obsolete" in any of them, though many note that it is "chiefly British" and some also that it is considered more formal/academic/literary. Next, Chaucer is still quite readable; my school had us go through much of The Canterbury Tales in 8th grade, simply with a glossary sheet of entirely obsolete words like siker. So, I'm really not sure what sort of point you're trying to make here, and I return to mine: WP does not need or keep template redirects written in Middle English to Early Modern English obscurities, because they serve no practical purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are disingenuously using "keep" as a verb here, which implies some sort of continued action is necessary for this to continue to exist. This is false. The exact opposite is true -- it requires absolutely no effort from anybody. The thing you are proposing is that we perform a bunch of actions to make it go away. Can you explain the "practical purpose" of this? jp×g🗯️ 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm fairly sure that this was created as a joke since it was created after whomst was a meme. mwwv converse∫edits 16:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not. jp×g🗯️ 08:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and a trout for the creator). We don't need joke redirects in template space. SMcCandlish, would you be willing to add Template:Whomst, Template:Whomst?, Template:By whomst to the nomination? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a joke jp×g🗯️ 08:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indistinguishable from one, and the main thrust of the nomination is that these serve no encyclopedia-building or -improving purpose, so we have no need of them. This is not CreateTemplateRedirectsForEveryImaginableLinguisticVariationPedia (even if you assert that "this is not CatchUpWithTheJokeyMemesOfTheDayPedia" doesn't apply).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you are having fun joking around, but I wish you would at least try to take this seriously for a minute.
    Wikipedia is a collaborative project to write an encyclopedia. It is not a roleplaying website for pretending we work for the government of East Germany.
    Memorable shortcuts for commonly-used templates serve an extremely obvious purpose: they make the process of editing easier and more tolerable.
    This is straightforwardly and directly conducive to the goal of building an encyclopedia. I am fine with jokes and being silly a bit here and there, but I would appreciate if you tried to keep in mind the actual purpose of the project. jp×g🗯️ 06:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "It is not a roleplaying website for pretending we work for the government of East Germany."? @SMcCandlish wasn't pretending they work for the government for East Germany to my knowledge. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. 🙄 I'm not going to engage further in this silly projection game, in which JPxG's redirects are perceived as jokey and not serving a serious purpose by most arrivals here, so he uses the school-yard "No I'm not! You are!" tactic of calling the redirect's critics jokey and non-serious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are not interested in a real conversation, that's fine, but please understand that using bureaucracy to police people's use of words you find dumb is deeply frivolous and unserious. The amount of time wasted by a dumb template redirect existing is approximately zero, whereas the amount of time wasted by hauling people out to a dumb RfD nomination is likely multiple hours. jp×g🗯️ 17:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep as plausible per 65, but minnow the creator anyway because it'd be funny cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But User:65... is proven wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't really claim that via one singular reply made by yourself though. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That response doesn't make any sense. How many "replies" there are, by whom, is irrelevant; the proof is in the reliable sourcing not which or how many persons referred to the reliable sourcing as part of the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Harmless, unambiguous target, WP:CHEAP applies despite nominator's unsubstantiated claim that redirects somehow increase maintenence burden. Even if it can be used as a joke, WP:Don't be the Fun Police. This isn't mainspace, we're allowed to be a little less serious behind the scenes sometimes. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's harmful because it can be confusing to editors. CHEAP is never a valid reason to keep a redirect; it's just there to counter any claims about redirects being a burden to system resources, which isn't being claimed here, so this is a straw man. And we're not talking about jokey essays for fun, we're talking about templates that can be transcluded in article space. If you want it so badly, keep it in user space, not template. Do you have any actual substantive reason for keeping this other than "oh no won't somebody please think of the poor redirects?" and "it's just for fun lol why do you have to be such sticks in the mud?" 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We actually do routinely delete jokey redirects; various policy and guideline pages have had many of them and they do not survive. We tolerate them for essays sometimes, when they are referential of content in the essay. But here, the actual templates these redirs resolve to are intended for mainspace use, so we absolutely should be "fun police", because goof-off stuff in mainspace isn't appropriate. If you create a {{crapola}} or {{pants on fire!}} redir to {{failed verification}} you can expect it to get RfD-nuked.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it confusing editors, when it is using the word properly. That would have you delete all the ALLCAPS shortcuts, since they definitely have in-Wikipedia jargon as part of their formation. Or any of the templates with short names, instead of sentence long names, as they are too short to elucidate their function. Wouldn't you need to add "footer navbox" to stop confusing editors in that the footer navbox templates are not infoboxes? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Argumentum ad absurdum. No, User:35...'s argument does not amount to deleting our ALLCAPS shortcuts, since they serve an important and unmistakable purpose for the entire editing community and are part of a well-established shortcut system. However, if someone created "WP:FLUG#NFPL33P" and "WP:CHICKENNUGGETS" shortcuts to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we would delete them since they would not be sensible to other editors and would not serve a purpose for anyone but their creator. Same with these templates. There is no evidence that "whomst" survives in Modern English usage except for their and little known and likely short-lived resurrection for an Internet joke meme, which is not pertinent to the templates these redirects go to. If I create a joke meme that uses the Chaucerian-era fynissched, and people pass that meme around on social media, that does not magically mean that WP needs a {{fynissched}} redirect to {{done}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to respectfully but vehemently disagree that "whomst" and "amongst" are entirely unheard of in modern English. They are known, used, and understood in Modern English as creating an old-timey old-fashioned historical or overly formal feel that is widely understood and used as such, outside of memes and jokes, even if memes and jokes also use such. If you said these words to any random adult on the street, they would understand both the meaning and the context-flavor. Contrarily, the word fynissched is not widely known, used, or understood, and if you showed it to a given random adult English speaker they would be unlikely to understand it unless they had specialized knowledge (if they heard it spoken they might understand it as a heavily accented "finished", but written? No way). Heck, I personally have used "amongst" unironically as part of normal daily speech without necessarily intending an old timey feel sometimes (intending a more formal, academic, or sinister flavor instead). Fieari (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that whomst and amongst are actual words that people use in their vocabulary - as that meme proved - and even has a Wiktionary page, whereas fynissched is so unimportant in the grand scheme of things that even Wiktionary forgot about it User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JPxG's remarks. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobody is going to expect a formal encyclopedia to have templates named after archaicisms. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:APO

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

Breathing (noise reduction)

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched around a little bit and I believe these redirects are referring to literally making pumps and breathing less loud. However, the current target is about a computer science concept, and I could not find a mention in related articles. Ca talk to me! 13:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fucket

[edit]

Unlikely search terms. While it may not be uncommon for ignorant unknowing English speakers to mispronounce the name (it's POO-get, FYI), they would most likely be well aware of the correct spelling, as that's how they're mispronouncing it in the first place. Putting it into writing seems more like an attempt at juvenile humour. Google search also shows that "fucket" is more likely to be a play on "bucket", though I doubt there's an appropriate target for that. Suggest deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the last one was apparently created by a blocked LTA sock. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as suggested per nom. No one refers to Phuket as F*cket. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "While it may not be uncommon for ignorant unknowing English speakers to mispronounce the name" is exactly one of the reasons for making a redirect in the first place User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Garden

[edit]

The current redirect is the only remotely plausible one in the page history, else I would've probably deleted or draftified. But since it's not mentioned at the target, I'm not sure this works either. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as clean-up after a blocked disruptive editor. No prejudice against good-faith creation if someone actually thinks such a redirect would be beneficial (as opposed to a red link). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List_of_Minecraft_characters#Creaking, where it is mentioned. Oppose deletion per WP:NOTBURO. Ca talk to me! 13:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an incredibly poor target, as it's only a passing mention that explains nothing about the term all. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Pale Garden is a place added in the newest update of Minecraft, notable for featuring the newest monster creaking. I think the target provides information about whats the most notable about the place, which is the monster. Ca talk to me! 14:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would have thought that the WP:NOTBURO argument would be in support of quickly deleting junk redirects resulting from pages created in bad faith instead of going through huge bureaucratic discussions to find accommodation for them. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally my argument would be same as your's, but since I believe the redirect should be kept, enforcing BURO would require pointlessly deletion and restoring/retargetting. Ca talk to me! 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I did say that there should be a redirect if someone thinks one would be beneficial, and since you do, I'm striking my above !vote. (Though I'm still not quite convinced that's an optimal target.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wikitrashing. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "wikitrashing"? Ca talk to me! 09:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The practice of inserting irrelevant and unnatural nonsense junk into wikis. It is also known as "wikilittering". 67.209.128.31 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard that term before, but I'm assuming that it's a synonym for WP:CRUFT User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCBR8-60-B28hp2BmDPdntcQ

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

Draft:Alan Kimche

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

Joe (drink)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 15#Joe (drink)

List of saints starting with A

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 15#List of saints starting with A

2014 in Illinois

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

December 7

[edit]

2025 ACC Championship Game

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

2025 Mountain West Conference Football Championship Game

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

2025 Abu Dhabi T10

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

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]

It seems the current target page talk wasn't notified. Web-julio (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nightb***h (film)

[edit]

Wikipedia is not censored. Name of film is simply nightbitch, and therefore redirect is an unlikely search term. Blethering Scot 22:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we usually don't house "censored" redirects, and especially not those that aren't commonly used and have one ghit but since the one hit was from The Daily Mail which is very widely-read we should keep this Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's statement. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as implausible censoring. just say "b*tch" if you're that worried about the fuck words. of course, this means i'd consider "nightb*tch (film)" to be a plausible redirect cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't realistically assume anyone, even the most naïve person, not knowing what the missing word is and searching to find out more of this item they had to self-censor. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nightb***h

[edit]

Book title is not censored and full name is Nightbitch. Wikipedia is also not censored. Blethering Scot 22:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's statement. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as implausible censoring. just say "b*tch" if you're that worried about the fuck words. of course, this means i'd consider "nightb*tch" to be a plausible redirect. don't you hate it when your stay at home wife sometimes transforms into a dog? that happened to my buddy eric once, and his week was ruined cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider "b***h" to be implausible though Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it certainly is on the more niche side of censorings. maybe down there with "fu*k" and "a*s" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fu*k has a redirect, so it's not really obscure Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ow my consonants cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plausible censoring. Wikipedia is not censored, but a redirect is not content, it's a navigation aid. The fact that wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean our users necessarily know that, or that they won't self-censor themselves, or copy a search term from someone else who does. WP:CHEAP applies. Fieari (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Female youtuber

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

BlueSky

[edit]

Arguing that BlueSky should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bluesky (BlueSky → Blue Sky) given a lot of people think the S is capitalized. The Wikinav data at the current DAB page target shows that clearly the majority of users expect to navigate to the social media platform. Raladic (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of canonizations

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

List of canonized saints

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

Barotrauma and Wind turbines

[edit]

"barotrauma" refers to damage caused by air pressure differences. while pretty unique to bats since their lungs are held together with thoughts and prayers, it's not exclusive to them. granted, getting sent to the shadow realm due to barotrauma from the low-pressure areas just behind the blades of wind turbines is a little more closely associated with bats, but it's not what the redirect's wording necessarily implies cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the intersection of the two topics is unique to bats - other animals that it's thought are impacted by wind farms are harmed by impact damage flying into them, not pressure damage from being near them. This is covered in detail at the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Synpath · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fado (character)

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fado is indirectly mentioned in the passage Tetra remains in the castle while Link and the King journey to the two sages who provided the Master Sword's power. They discover Ganon's forces murdered them both (which includes Fado). Maybe a mention could be added but I am doubtful. Ca talk to me! 08:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's good enough for the redirect to target there, since he isn't mentioned by name. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not been added to the target. Also, thoughts on the pre-BLAR page history in case of preference to delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State of Palestine'

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

"Israel"

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

三州府

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

Legends Drum and Bugle Corps

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#Legends Drum and Bugle Corps

Buxamina

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

Entomb

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

Greg peg

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

Uncomfiness

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "uncomfiness" is a word I do use from time to time. + the OED may not have an entry for "uncomf i ness" specifically but they do have entries for uncomfYness which is a one-letter difference Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah night

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, but is a term used in a least one book (Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account). However, Google results are all associated with a Christian alternative to Halloween, and the only use of the term on enwiki is in a reference at Halloween. Not sure what's best here, but the status quo is likely astonishing to at least some searchers. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wading bird(s)

[edit]

Seems to me that these should point to the same target, possibly a disambiguation page. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 16:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Target both to Wader? Or to Wader (American)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


December 6

[edit]

some regional honeys

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

2026 ARCA Menards Series West

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

2026 ARCA Menards Series East

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

Bengals

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

ROOT!

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

Root!

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

Pterotype

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

Ella, maldita alma (Tv Series)

[edit]

Recently created article which I've moved. This redirect isn't a likely search result because of its strange mixed capitalization. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with purely capitalization-based disambig errors is that Wikipedia and Google search are case-insensitive with no way to do a case-sensitive search so I physically can't search for JUST those that use "Tv Series" Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for you to search "Tv Series", just as there is no reason for you to search for "Tv SeRies". Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to search for other redirects that have that exact capitalization, because I would be more inclined to !keep if it was common than if it was uncommon Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orduspor 1967

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

Great appendage

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

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas characters

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

Hawaiian style

[edit]

was about to retarget to hawaiian pizza, but i realized that there are at least two other things that can be considered "hawaiian style". maybe even more! also see the history. it's not important to this discussion, but it is really funny cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as redirect to pizza, although redirecting to Hawaiian pizza is worth a thought (the only difference is the pineapple, which I don't think is considered Canadian as much as a universal ingredient). It's lucky that at least two fruits, pineapples and tomatoes, go well on pizzas (are any other fruits commonly used as a pizza topping?). As for your alternates, don't try it on a surfboard. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i was actually thinking of acoustic guitars and shaved ice, two things widely known for being closely related[citation needed] cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see also hawaii-style pizza and hawaiian-style pizza, which do redirect to hawaiian pizza, but make sure to specify that it's about pizza cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig as multiple topics of prominence: "uh-huhuhehuhuhuhg, yeah, Beavis, we'll take it Hawaiian style, ugh-huhuhughuhug." On another note, after I get done with the page I've G-nom'd, I think I've got a new article idea... BarntToust 21:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 06:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between Hawaiian pizza, aloha shirt / hawaiian-style shirt, Hawaiian cuisine, the inevitable BABH reference just in case and probably some others I'm missing as well Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
problem: hawaiian pizza still has nothing to do with hawaii or styles cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawaiian pizza is regularly and commonly called Hawaiian style pizza., even though (as I was shocked to learn) it is Canadian in origin. Fieari (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chowda

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

Tom Yum Goong

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

Tom-yum-goong

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

Flammeo

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

Nazi persecution of Jews

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

TikTok Rizz Party

[edit]

Not mentioned at the current target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quandale Dingle

[edit]

Not mentioned at the current target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as @Jolielover added content to the article mentioning it and it most likely won't be turned into its own article in the future. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandbox (2021 video game)

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

Trump John, Donald

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

December 5

[edit]

Specialization in bees

[edit]

is there a chance of it being used to refer to some other type of specialization, like beekeeping? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Like Mx. Granger, my first though was "scientific specialization in bees", which apparently is called Melittology. However, I'm fairly interested in biology, and Fieari had a totally different response. I think a WP:DAB is possible. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 12:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My first assumption was also melittology, though I can also see the other ideas. Perhaps a DAB is possible? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

antiwhatever, helminth

[edit]

same-ish rationale as worms, animals below, but "helminth" refers to parasitic worms, so even if not deleted, it points to the wrong target (and the right one doesn't mention antigens or antibodies). could also be a case of xy, thinking about it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The title of this nomination made me chuckle. Further thoughts on retargeting to Helminth protein?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy vehicle

[edit]

heavy equipment fans are in shambles right now. maybe planes and tanks too. really, results gave me a little bit of everything cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

London Bridge task force

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

Calicrat

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Calicrat

Quest for Thelda

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

Guren Island

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

Lymbriciform

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 12#Lymbriciform

Ascensorium

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 12#Ascensorium

Sanduíche

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

Sonnich

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

Mex-Mex

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

The Most Famous Barbadian

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

December 4

[edit]

GABAAL

[edit]

No evidence that these initalisms are in use for these compounds; WP should not be creating these on our own. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think they should be mentioned at their targets- WP should not be fabricating abbreviations that are not in use in reliable sources. If not mentioned at target, then these redirects are inappropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why my Keep is conditional. Jay 💬 09:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My usual approach is to decide on the validity of alternative names/abbreviations at Rfd, and if deleted, then remove mentions from the article based on that consensus, but I see how the opposite order could make sense. I have removed these abbreviations from the articles; their merit can be decided via WP:BRD. Unless they are restored, these redirects should be deleted until and if there is consensus for recreating them. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GHBAL is linked from GABA analogue and mentioned in some 200 articles. Jay 💬 10:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions of GHBAL are largely due to the 185 transclusions of {{GABA receptor modulators}} ― Synpath 21:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to remove it from {{GABA receptor modulators}} as a fabricated abbreviation? Jay 💬 08:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it exists in the template as a piped link to γ-Hydroxybutaldehyde. Shortening to GHBAL for the purposes of a compact template seems fair to me (though many other compounds that could use short-forms don't, but that's just inconsistent styling and not a real issue). I mentioned that stat as I made the assumption after reading your comment that for GHBAL to appear almost 200 times in Wikipedia meant that the acronym form of γ-Hydroxybutaldehyde was common and a redirect is justified. After checking I found it appeared mostly in template transclusions, I assume to save space.
I miscounted by including non-mainspace transclusions by the way, so in mainspace: 176 transclusions of {{GABA receptor modulators}}, 25 transclusions of {{GHB receptor modulators}} (12 overlapping) and 3 mentions outside of templates. ― Synpath 16:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since piping for the sake of compactness is acceptable, I'm wondering if tagging with {{R from incorrect abbreviation}} will be fine, since we don't have an rcat for incorrect acronyms or initialisms. It eventually targets to {{R from incorrect name}} anyway. Jay 💬 17:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The acronym/abbreviation is correct, it's more that I don't think we need to create redirects for any conceivable abbreviation that isn't already in common use as an abbreviation, like the related GABA or the unrelated NATO. As an example, I would regard GHBA as an equally valid and understandable abbreviation for γ-Hydroxybutaldehyde that doesn't clash with related compounds (γ-Hydroxybutyric acid is abbreviated as GHB). There is no standard abbreviation for the aldehyde and choosing one out of many is arbitrary. ― Synpath 19:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FitMC

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

Karstarma ardea

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

2025 Global T20 Canada

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

Something Something for the Advancement of White People

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

Unmentioned Doom II enemies

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

HammerHead (company)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#HammerHead (company)

Future season redirects not mentioned at targets

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

Dick Tantrum

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

2026 SA20

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#2026 SA20

2026 Bangladesh Premier League

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

Damehar, Himachal Pradesh

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Damehar, Himachal Pradesh

National Kabaddi Association

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

O'Doyle Rules

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#O'Doyle Rules

The Scream (Greek TV miniseries)

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

Adimo

[edit]

This name isn't mentioned in the current revision of the target article. Page history shows that it used to mention Adimo when the Adimo article was moved to its current title on February 19, 2014. In order for this redirect to be helpful, Adimo must be mentioned somewhere in the target article again. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified on this discussion at the target and creator talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinserted "Adimo is the first human, and Heva the first woman, in a creation story." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⚭/equaric unicodes

[edit]

anon IP changed status quo of the Achillean/gay symbol. But the gay men and lesbian pages don't mention the unicodess specifically, only the image. Also that also means sapphism in general. --MikutoH talk! 02:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1st, Retarget 2nd to Lesbian I see that lesbianism is the primary subject to the second and the first redirects to the primary subject. Kolano123 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be consistent with ⚤. I also noticed that ⚣ never had the current target before, but the gay men page didn't exist when it was created. They were retargeted two times by Leif Runenritzer and Kwamikagami. Also @Gaismagorm: Any comment? --MikutoH talk! 03:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'd say Keep second and Retarget first to LGBTQ symbols since I feel like nobody is gonna be searching up the unicode symbol and looking for the article on gay men or lesbian, and instead will likely be looking for info on the symbol itself. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Gender symbol#Sexual orientation and gender politics. That's the article about the gender symbols, and that's the article with the most information on these two in particular. If anybody searches for these two symbols, they will get the most information from the Gender symbol article. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to LGBTQ symbols: My first thought was to retarget them to achillean and sapphic, respectively, because they're technically more correct. My second thought, though, was that those two terms are comparatively obscure and most people searching using the symbols would, in fact, probably be looking for gay man and lesbian. My third thought was... how likely are those to be actually used as search terms? Probably not very. Finally, my fourth thought, upon reading Gaismagorm's comment above, was that, yeah, in the unlikely event that someone copy and pastes those symbols into the search bar, they are probably better served by the article about the symbols themselves, rather than what they represent. Gender symbol would also work because it basically contains the same content, but I think LGBTQ symbols is slightly preferable because it's somewhat more narrowly focused and would probably leave readers less confused. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 AP Poll

[edit]

Seems ambigous but I'm not totally sure what would be a better target. Could refer to 2024–25 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings, 2023–24 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings, 2023–24 NCAA Division I women's basketball rankings, 2024–25 NCAA Division I women's basketball rankings. But college football is the only one that only uses 2024. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic Field (Seattle)

[edit]

Ambiguous title which does not have any mention at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous athletic field at the site variously called Athletic Park (Seattle), Athletic Field (Seattle), YMCA Park, Y.M.C.A. Park, etc.
The original reliable, secondary sources surely exist for these names in the back issues of the original newspapers. I have not yet had a chance to expand the article.
PK-WIKI (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma-Aminobutanol

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

Bandahara

[edit]

(Procedural nomination on behalf of Ariankntl Mdewman6 (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)). I propose that the redirect Bandahara be deleted or replaced, as the current redirect to Bendahara is inappropriate. "Bandahara" refers to a specific geographical feature, Mount Bandahara in Indonesia, while the title of Bendahara in the context of traditional Malay government is generally no longer used in modern government structures. The two are entirely unrelated, and this redirect may confuse readers seeking information about the mountain.[reply]

I suggest deleting the redirect and allowing Bandahara to become an independent article about the mountain. Thank you for your attention. Ariankntl (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably oppose, alternative suggestion - does this re-direct fall under the Reasons for not deleting 2,3 and 6? Would the better alternative not be a disambiguation page? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting "Bandahara" to "Bendahara" is inappropriate because the term "Bandahara" is more relevant when associated with Mount Bandahara. A better solution would be to direct "Bandahara" to an article about the mountain. This ensures that the information provided is more accurate and meets the user's search expectations. Ariankntl (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you prove that it is more relevant? I think in the grand scale of things very few people will go and look for either article. I generally would not care about this topic, but someone posted it on my talk page. I note that I created "Bandahara" in 2014, and the "Mount Bandahara" article was created this month - I think this probably points to how important these articles looking at the greater picture - I don't think the generic user is looking for either of these. I think my points under reasons for deleting still stand. However, a disambiguation page might be better for the user to point to the correct article. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Goodness

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Thank Goodness

X.

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

Child suicide bomber

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

December 1

[edit]

UEFA Euro 2028 squads

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

Trump nominations for independent agencies

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 9#Trump nominations for independent agencies

Longest Wikipedia Article

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 9#Longest Wikipedia Article

Director-general of Justice and Home affairs

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep all-lowercase variant, Delete other two

Richard Wagner hates Jewish music

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

Criticism of George Bush

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

Plannet terror

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

UTF-2000

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10#UTF-2000

The B

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

Korean People's Revolutionary Army

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

German Medical Science

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

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]
    WP:RS does not apply to redirects. The question about redirects is whether it's a plausible search term. The fact that the President of Israel called it a Pogrom, and it's in the article, makes it a plausible search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:35, 13 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]
  • Retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands or delete.
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]
  • Speedy and Strong Keep - What happened in Amsterdam was horrific and it needs to be reflected as such. It has been described as a pogram and that's because it was one. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to try to say this as charitably as possible, but as someone whose relatives have had to flee actual pogroms during WW2, I feel I do need to say it:
    I find this comparison, made by heads of state or politicians and now defended by you, incredibly insensitive, deeply upsetting, and bordering, itself, on antisemitism, given how profoundly, by association, it minimizes the horrors of anti-Jewish pogroms and relativizes the atrocities of those that carried out pogroms. Especially now that it's become increasingly apparent the Israeli fans engaged in behavior that could itself, at best, be described as monstrous bigotry and cheers for ethnic cleansing.
    Either way, while I wanted to share how offensive I think this comparison actually is, I'm aware my feelings on the subject matter little. The only question that should be considered here is: per RNEUTRAL, is this term one that's been established by reliable sources to have due weight and therefore meets the criteria for NPOV redirects? I don't have an answer to that myself as I haven't looked at the proportion of sources that use the term, but I think that's what should be focused on here. LaughingManiac (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaughingManiac How is calling it a pogrom bordering on antisemitism? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said what I said and have laid out my reasons for saying it already. Take it or leave it at that. LaughingManiac (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very quick Google search demonstrates that the term “Amsterdam pogrom” and “pogrom in Amsterdam” are being widely used to describe the article topic. This strikes me a reasonable search term; I personally used the redirect to initially find the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) EDIT: under wikipedia:RNEUTRAL we are permitted to use non-neutral redirect titles and are in fact given extra leeway because redirects are less visible to readers. Given that the the term has been frequently used in reliable sources and given that it is a reasonable search term for readers to utilize, I really do not see a justification to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or just delete - the reliable sources used in the article which I spot-checked do not describe this event as a pogrom; at most they quote Israeli officials doing so. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are not describing this as a pogrom. Netanyahu is not a reliable source for what this article should be called. Parabolist (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unfortunate event with poor behavior all around does not meet the definition of a progrom. If someone has called it that that can be reflected in the article text but we shouldn't be saying it was one. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete or redirect as suggested. Not a pogrom, though there was violence against Jews. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 04:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands. This feels like another case of WP:RECENTISM. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget WP:RECENTISM in full swing. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands per Ymblanter. The segregation and deportation of Jews in the Netherlands was a gradual and meticulous process. The holocaust article also has no redirects or incoming links from articles having "pogrom' in the title. If a president naming a recent incident as a pogrom, is irrelevant opinion, a group of Wikipedia editors characterizing the Holocaust in the Netherlands as comprising of a pogrom, is not any less. But if we have other redirects titled "pogrom" targeting holocaust articles where "pogrom" is not mentioned, or pogroms didn't happen, then I would like to look at those, and possibly reconsider. Jay 💬 08:26, 20 November 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) 03:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where The Holocaust in the Netherlands covers actual pogroms? Jay 💬 16:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The Holocaust in the Netherlands does not appear to cover pogroms, and the use of this to 'November 2024 Amsterdam attacks' is a massive neutrality violation.
TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the target notes, any commentators incorrectly called the attack a pogrom. Neutrality isn't an issue per WP:RNEUTRAL. The Holocaust article does not speak about any pogroms in Amsterdam or elsewhere but rather an efficiently brutal genocidal administration, so it does not appear to be an accurate historical rendering to target this there. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite AV media

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 9#Cite AV media

Raleway

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

Virus'

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

Virose

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Virose

November 30

[edit]

South Georgia (version 2)

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

Alex Shrub

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:36, 21 November 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) 22:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to the list entry Jay pointed to (might be worth adding an anchor to the right spot). Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • Delete. If this were plausible for any utensil, it would be a spoon with long s, i.e. ſpoon. Even then I don't think it useful; we shouldn't go around creating "f" redirects for every word with an initial or medial "s" merely because someone might confuse an old long-s spelling with an f-spelling. fpork wouldn't make sense for the current target even with a long-s, especially since the long s fell out of favour before the spork was invented in 1874. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or soft redirect to wikt:fpoon. Enix150 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wiktionary for now - if the entry there fails verification then we'll have our answer and it will be G8-ed. Otherwise we'll have our answer than it's a rare but present nickname and it will point somewhere than actually mentions the term. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:43, 25 November 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) 18:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If foon exists as a humorous term for spork, then surely fpoon wouldn't be that much different? Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC8671

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

Yoshi's Island series villains

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

Fado (character)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#Fado (character)

Wokingham Town

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

Izzle O' Wizzle

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

Benzema 15

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

Barotrauma and Wind turbines

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#Barotrauma and Wind turbines

WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:NOTFANDOM

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

Headwaters Country Jam

[edit]

Not mentioned in target article or rest of Wikipedia. Delete. Retarget per below -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:11, 22 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! 09:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macchar

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

HAL America

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

Argufying

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Argufying

Template:Use Myanmar English

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

Template:Country data Government of East Pakistan

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

Main Line Railway Preservation

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

Make Me Look Good

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

Capture and replay testing

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

Multivariant testing

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Multivariant testing

Positive and negative test cases

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 12#Positive and negative test cases

November 28

[edit]

Musha-gaeshi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10#Musha-gaeshi

Zubon

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

3.1415926535…

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

The Communiqué

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

Taiyu

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget Táiyu to Taiwanese Hokkien and Disambiguate others

Fork Knife

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

Forkknife

[edit]

Likely originated as a joke redirect, but unclear target as is (fork or knife?). Recommending deletion, as it does not benefit Wikipedia. TNstingray (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

019

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

Heavy vehicle

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 5#Heavy vehicle

Camión

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

Lymbriciform

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 5#Lymbriciform

antiwhatever, helminth

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 5#antiwhatever, helminth

Worms, animals

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

Bo Hagon

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

Talk:FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry

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

Talk:F.C. Porto-Sporting CP rivalry

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

Talk:F.C. Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry

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

F.C. Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry

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

F.C. Porto–Sporting CP rivalry

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

FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry

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

F.C Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry

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

Specialization in bees

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 5#Specialization in bees

floor sugar

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

Fireworks (TV Series)

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

Maha Abdelrahman

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

BreakThrough News

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: refine to the BreakThrough News section

Stephen Hume

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

November 27

[edit]

Clarissa: Or the History of A Young

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

The History of a Young Girl

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

National Kabaddi Association

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4#National Kabaddi Association

Personal weapon

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

Mex-Mex

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 5#Mex-Mex

Oberon in fiction

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

Sunny country

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

September 2017 bridge incident

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

⚭/equaric unicodes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4#⚭/equaric unicodes

Cilla Single

[edit]

Can't find where Ben Frank ever used this as a pseudonym. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment surprisingly (to me) this seems to be attested despite very limited online hits: Franklin, Benjamin; Smyth, Albert H. (1905). The writings of Benjamin Franklin. New York, London: Macmillan Co.; Macmillan & Co. OCLC 1158474884. Retrieved 2024-11-28. (on page 186). I'm very unsure how someone would end up searching for this term without knowing it was a pseudonym of Franklin's however.
  • This may be added to the target at the "Success as an author" section where it says He frequently wrote under pseudonyms. If we have 3 or 4 names, Cilla Single can be mentioned alongwith them. Jay 💬 06:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin (swim coach)

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

2024 AP Poll

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4#2024 AP Poll

Unmentioned Pikmin 2 caves

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget castle and Delete the other two

DuPage 3

[edit]

Group of neighborhoods previously WP:BLARd no longer mentioned in target article. Delete unless it is mentioned somewhere else. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:10, 20 November 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) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Goodness

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4#Thank Goodness

Athletic Field (Seattle)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4#Athletic Field (Seattle)

November 25

[edit]

Cicindela redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 3#Cicindela redirects

Trump Won

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 3#Trump Won

Paw, Paw

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 3#Paw, Paw

Easy and cheap

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

WP:INTERNETPROCTOL

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per G7

MeTV Plus

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

Swing the hairy ones

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

...Re

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Relisted as Talk:...Re (film)#Requested move 14 December 2024

CTTOI

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 8#CTTOI

Andrew Gower (programmer)

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdraw. [non-admin closure. Will change redirect target to Andrew Gower (disambiguation) per discussion at WT:VG and recommendation of Axem Titanium, see final comment.]

Trim level

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

Adimo

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4#Adimo

Giant ground sloth

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

Tradiční Lovecký salám

[edit]

lovecký salám (hunting salami, apparently) is mentioned in the article, but not necessarily its "traditional" variant. has incoming links, but their classification as traditional seems to be unsourced and not necessarily correct cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should mention that lovecký salám already exists, so the links could easily be fixed, if any fixing needs to be done cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lovecký salám was applied for as a EU Traditional Speciality Guaranteed-product (TSG). That means that -in order to use the name- all products in the EU have to be produced according to the specs provided in the application. following opposition, the name Tradiční Lovecký salám was accepted as a TSG (see here). That means that one can use the name Lovecký salám without regards to what the product looks like, but Tradiční Lovecký salám is subject to the characteristics in the description. The name is therefore worth a redirect as people may be interested and this is the closest page we can offer. Having said that, the current characterisation of Lovecký salám as a TSG i incorrect; and I will change that. An alternative is redirecting to List of traditional specialities guaranteed by country, but for me that feels too generic... L.tak (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per L.tak's changes. Thanks. Jay 💬 07:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
corrected the page now in line with what I stated. Thanks for bringing the oversight to my attention. L.tak (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mortazza

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Mortazza

Openptail g

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

Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

[edit]

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

Struck per WP:ARBPIA's extendedconfirmed restriction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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]
  • merge what little there is, place a redirect if really necessary, but I think due to how general the title is, that due to WP:RECENT within a few months it will be back here to be deleted due to lack of precision. TiggerJay (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge, as many RS call it this way:
  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]
The vast majority of these sources are not calling it a pogrom in their own voice and are simply quoting people describing the event as such, or just mention it in the headline (WP:HEADLINES). The only sources that are asserting it was a pogrom are 6: Townhall (WP:MREL), Legal insurrection (not a RS, looks like a glorified blog), Israel National News (not a RS, it's an Israeli Zionist media network), NYSun (a conservative news website known for dishonest reporting), a blog from ToI (WP:NEWSBLOG) and finally, and unsurprisingly, Jpost (not precisely known for fact checking and currently under discussion re: their reliability). - Ïvana (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --MikutoH talk! 03:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT in Chile

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

November 24

[edit]

Next Singaporean presidential election

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Next Singaporean presidential election

Atlantoöccipital articulations

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

Ap (ghost)

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

Big Bank Black

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Big Bank Black

The Scream (Greek TV miniseries)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4#The Scream (Greek TV miniseries)

Under-16 and Under-17 teams

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

2026 NFL team redirects

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

Recent

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Recent

Template:NWHL profile

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

King Edwards

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

AR-M100390

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

Bus Testing and Research Center

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

Template:Puffery inline

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Template:Puffery inline

Illustrative aid

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

Field hockey at the 2028 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Field hockey at the 2028 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament

Algeria national under-16 and under-17 basketball team

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

Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel).

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

2024–25 Pilipinas Super League season

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#2024–25 Pilipinas Super League season

Marie Stopes Myanmar

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Marie Stopes Myanmar

Taxi to Heaven

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

Ultrajectine Communion

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

Mate tea (drink)

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

2025 Dutch general election

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to 2023 Dutch general election. People aren't exactly happy with doing that, but unless there's a consensus to delete (which there is nowhere near, despite grumblings) then this has to target something. And of the two targets there's more support for the standalone article than the section, so here we go.

Kikurage

[edit]

Not sure what the path forward here is with these redirects. I recently changed the target of these redirects from Tremella fuciformis to Auricularia heimuer (while creating Kikurage) after finding that most results in English for the term "Kikurage" refer to Auricularia heimuer (specifically its use in Japanese cuisine), which would claim it to essentially be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term due to its common use in English to refer to the Japanese culinary use. However, after reviewing Tremella fuciformis, the term "Kikurage" is mentioned in the article, which is probably why the redirects Kikurage mushroom and Kikurage mushrooms targeted there. At this point, I'm not sure if "keep", "retarget" or "disambiguate" (possibly by retargeting to Wood ear?) is the best course of action here, so I'm bringing this up for discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just from reading the articles it seems that the redirects to Auricularia heimuer are correct. Tremella fuciformis is the shiro kikurage (or white kikurage) in Japanese. I don't think this is just a white form of kikurage, as it is a very different fungi (different taxonomic classes). This seems to me more akin to tiger and Tasmanian tiger where the latter are not closely related to cats. The only question is whether "Kikurage mushrooms" could be used for such different mushrooms that are used quite differently in cooking.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JEW

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

A Night

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

Male protagonist bingo

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

RubRub

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

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to add a mention to the correct franchise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of North Yemen

[edit]

Ill make it an article just like how Flag of South Yemen is an article Abo Yemen✉ 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Normally, I'd say retarget to North Yemen (which is incorrectly marked as a dab page, more on that in a moment), which has a picture of the flag. It's short enough to accommodate information about the flag there, and if a spinout is warranted, that can happen without discussion here. However, I notice that the nominator has recently converted it from a dab page to an article (without removing the dab template or adding any sources). I don't know a thing about the history of the region and have no idea if this was reasonable or not. I'd encourage others that might to take a closer look. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you make it an article, I'd say delete. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:33, 20 November 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) 04:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. It being an article now, this is no longer an RfD matter but (if the condition doesn't improve) a WP:AFD or WP:SPEEDY or WP:PROD matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under which title is the article? Jay 💬 16:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ハンマーブロス

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

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and tag with {{R with possibilities}}; I added PKS 1402-012 to the bulleted list at Parkes Catalogue of Radio Sources pulling a reference from the redirect page history that I thought was the most general (I didn't parse through those 33 references too thoroughly though). This doesn't quite satisfy WP:SELFRED, but there's enough in the page history to benefit another editor if this object becomes more notable. Should GalaxyBeing request deletion, I trust that decision. ― Synpath 20:21, 12 November 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) 04:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ro (antigen)

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

Indy HeroClix (heroclix)

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

Chingisid

[edit]

Which articles should these redirects point to? The current situation is inconsistent and confusing.

  1. Chingisid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
  2. Chingissid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
  3. Chinggisid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
  4. Chinggisids redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
  5. Chingissids does not exist yet.
  6. Chinggissids does not exist yet.
  7. Genghisids redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
  8. Genghisid redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan
  9. Chingizid redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan
  10. Family tree of Genghis Khan redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan.
  11. Jochid redirects to Jochi, but Jochids redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan. (Jochid Ulus redirects to Golden Horde, that seems fine).

Personally, I am in favour of redirecting them all to Descent from Genghis Khan, as a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid is, strictly speaking, a descendant from Genghis Khan, not an earlier Borjigin, while Genghis Khan himself was obviously not a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid, but a Borjigin only. Redirecting to a section always risks link rot anyway, as section titles often change or they are rearranged, while Descent from Genghis Khan as a whole will presumably always be dedicated to this very subject. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Not sure if I formatted this RfD correctly; I rarely do these. Do I need to tag all redirects in question? NLeeuw (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section redirects are useful in taking the reader straight to the relevent part of a large article. A link from Genghisids to Borjigin can confuse the reader, since the Borjigin article does mention Genghisids in the lead. Link rot can be reduced by linking to an anchor rather than a section name, e.g. {{anchor|Genghisids}}. An editor is likely to preserve the anchor. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw if you meant to nominate all of them, then no. if you want to nominate multiple redirects at once, you could try this mass xfd tool. then again, it doesn't matter much, since anyone could just do whatever is deemed necessary with them after this is closed (except deleting, that's an admin thing) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Crimean Giray dynasty was referred to as the "Genghisids". Genghisid/Chinggisid literally means Borjigin dynasty. Descent from Genghis Khan is irrelevant in this context, and I don't even know why this article exists. Should be merged. "Chingisid dynasty" doesn't exist. Only two words should be redirected Chinggisids and Genghisids. Beshogur (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but similarly, lots of people were referred to, or referred to themselves, as "Romans", and yet histiographical convention names a great number of them "Byzantines", for example. We could theoretically always merge everything, but we'll soon end up with articles that are WP:TOOLONG (e.g. List of Roman emperors should imo have been split, because it's way too long to navigate comfortably, and we already had List of Byzantine emperors.) Although I made a plea for not splitting off a new articles named Chingisids above if there was no obvious need, I think we shouldn't underestimate the value of splitting up articles either. NLeeuw (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Descent from Genghis Khan is a very odd article that should probably be redirected, but Chinggisid is distinct from the wider Borjigin term primarily because it was descent from Genghis, not general membership of the Borjigin, that legitimised rule in the post-Mongol world. See discussion in e.g. May 2017. While the Borjigin altan urugh (golden family) included the descendants of Genghis's brothers and of his children by concubines such as Kolgen, they were not eligible for rulership because they were not Chinggisid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I see a solution. I will expand Chinggisids until it is reasonably complete; Borjigin needs also a little bit of expansion and a lot of rewriting to match current scholarship (many of its sources are half a century old and vastly out of date).
Meanwhile, Descent from Genghis Khan should be renamed and refocused onto the matter of genetic descent from Genghis—i.e. the numerous papers that have been released after the "16 million descendants" article from 2003.
All redirects seem fairly self-explanatory then, except for Jochid/Jochids which should probably redirect to Golden Horde, and Family tree of Genghis Khan which would probably work best as a redirect to Chinggisids, if I can figure out how the family tree thing works. Thanks for bringing matter up, NLeeuw. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Yes, I suppose renaming Descent from Genghis Khan to Genetic descent from Genghis Khan or something works better. Chinggisids can then fully focus on the reigning families of the late Middle Ages descended from Genghis or married into that family. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I would recommend doing a search query in reliable sources to check for the WP:COMMONNAME. We better prevent endless disputes about how to spel "Chingisids" (I don't care which, but we need to pick one). NLeeuw (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current spelling (Chinggisids) is favoured in most reliable sources that I can see, including all cited so far in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrams appears to overwhelmingly agree. I'm a bit surprised; I'm not that familiar with the double g spelling. Halperin 1987, which I use a lot for reference, has single g, single s, and some of his sources are single g, double s, but apparently they are in the minority. Ngrams shows the double g, single s spelling quickly gaining ground from the 1990s onwards. Seems like you've chosen the right title, so I guess that settles it. NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 14 November 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) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposal I think we already reached agreement, but let's make it clear.
    • Redirect no. #4 has been turned into stand-alone article Chinggisids, which is good. (Thanks to AirshipJungleman29!).
    • Redirects no. #1, #2, #3, #7, #8 and #9 should all redirect to Chinggisids.
    • If anyone ever created no. #5 or #6, they should redirect to Chinggisids as well.
    • Redirects no. #10 and no. #11 can remain unchanged.
    • A requested move (RM) for Descent from Genghis Khan could be discussed on Talk:Descent from Genghis Khan if the current title is found to be inadequate. AirshipJungleman29 could initiate such an RM if they please.
This seems to be the outcome of the discussion above, but we haven't yet formally agreed that we are going to resolve the question this way, so let's make it official. NLeeuw (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentuchy

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

凧

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#凧

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" [14][15][16]. 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]
  • Delete Not mentioned at target. If you have to do this level of OR to justify a redirect, then just don't. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 14 November 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) 04:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only if Lu Tian Na, Lu Tian-Na, and Lu Tian-na are also deleted, or bundled here. Per Sun8908, "Lu Tianna" is the most conventional transliteration, so I don't see why this should be deleted if the others can stay. Jay 💬 17:01, 11 December 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 14 November 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) 04:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enteractive

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete Nobody wants to keep this as is, there's some movement to retarget to the disambiguation, but even there deletion is prefered and I have to close as one or the other

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]

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! 05:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the current target page talk wasn't notified. Web-julio (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • September, which says that it has only 30 days in the first (very short) paragraph, makes more sense than either of the two new proposals, and I'd say to retarget there if there were any internal links. But there aren't, and a redlink is a better result here for all other use cases. Delete. —Cryptic 06:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if September 31 ever gets talked about in Wikipedia, it would be in the current target (list). However, it's not yet. Though both mentions the words separatedly. Web-julio (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery. There is no information on why did the editor must added in a leap year for September. IMO, there is only 30 days beneath the month of September but not added in one day. See this: [17] ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 03:53, 17 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, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:07, 24 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:46, 14 November 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) 04:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karhusaari (island)

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

Matsubara dialect

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

Nueva Hampshire

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10#Nueva Hampshire

Turkish Turkish

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

Putting wedge

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

Tata (Persian King)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus Numerically slightly more support for deletion but Fieari's argument for keeping has gone unrefuted.

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no mention at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linjian

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

サイゴン

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep No actual argument to change anything has survived the sockstrike.

Mongola

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

History of the United States (2008–2024)

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

Vendamonia

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

Californian city redirects

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

Jamie Boo Birse

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

Google Currents (2011–present)

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

Kingite

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#Kingite

Fay Spaniel

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

Lanyard class

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

Great Depression in the Middle East

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

Asmodel

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Restore and send to AfD

GGKEY

[edit]

no mention TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, all books have a GGKEY at BGC, not just ones without ISBNs, from what I gather. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 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) 03:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best target. The idea that we should delete and recreate redirects every time some redirectable word or phrase is removed or added to an article is contrary to many good things including common sense. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per IP. I disagree with Rich Farmbrough entirely - we should have redirects only if they are mentioned at the target, and any exceptions to that rule are traps that it's our duty to defang as we come across them. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery et al. The fact that this redirect was nominated by a sock is irrelevant. Nobody will find this useful if it isn't mentioned anywhere, and we don't want to leave readers asking themselves what this means. CycloneYoris talk! 07:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IP. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had voted to delete GGKEY (identifier) at an earlier RfD, and at the time I did not ask to bundle GGKEY, nor nominate it myself because it had incoming links (it still has), and I had hoped someone will have some useful information to add to some article. More than an year later, we still don't, but many of our citations have linked this, hence it is useful, and I am hopeful the current target can have a mention. Delete for now. Jay 💬 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 1#Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

Ted, Ned and Ed

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

Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories

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

Cite AV media

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 1#Cite AV media

Five Finger Discount (That's So Raven episode)

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

Raleway

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 1#Raleway

So hell

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#So hell

Arthur J. May

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

November 21

[edit]

Hent

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

Just one more thing

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

Clock/calendar

[edit]

xy? while a lot of clocks are also calendars these days, they're not inherently the same thing, and their relation or lack thereof isn't discussed in the target cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. Calendars aren't clocks. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 21 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! 21:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteish. I think XY is more important here. My gut tells me that this was intended to refer to clocks that have calendars built in, and that the off chance that someone looks for this (especially unlikely given the slash), they're probably looking for that. There's also a deleted Clock calendar page (as OR, via a prod), which might back that up. There's also Calendar Clock Face, but that's kind of a stretch. And there's stuff like Prague astronomical clock, an actual clock that even has a section devoted to a calendar mechanism that it contains. In all, I just don't think there's a good target here, especially given the odd formatting with the slash. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by I think XY is more important here? WP:XY supports retargeting, not deletion. Also, that Clock calendar was deleted doesn't back anything up. Someone had posted File:Clock calendar.jpg along with their personal explanation of what it means. That abolutely should have been deleted, but it has no bearing on the redirect at hand. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was a little unclear...by "more important", I mean that I think it's a case of XY without a good retargeting option. That's a fair point about the old deleted article given that image upload. But that gut feeling I was talking about is also backed up by a simple web search, which comes up with endless clocks that have calendar functions built in (which is probably most digital ones at this point). Even if both are technically mentioned where you propose, it's a bit of a stretch that it's actually going to be a helpful target. It's hard to imagine that anyone doesn't know what these everyday items are, and even if they don't, it's also unlikely that they're going to search for them together...with a slash in the middle...unless they're looking for something more specific, like some combination device, which isn't mentioned there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm getting at is: if you're reading the redirect to mean "something that has the functionality of both a clock and a calendar", that's one thing...but your rationale for deletion then is not WP:XY. WP:XY is explicitly for the intersection of two topics. When there is a target that discusses both topics, which we have in this case, WP:XY says to retarget there. While I disagree with them, arguments such as with "Delete per the formatting" or "Delete because BigTechCo makes a notable gadget with this name", etc. don't have that problem -- Tavix (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Clocks are devices which measure and read out time; calendars are systems of subdividing and numerating an entire year. Some clocks also read out the date but that does not make them calendars. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and all of that is explained at Time#Measurement. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Time#Measurement per Tavix. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google search results for this and "clock calendar" give gadgets that give both the day and the time. Apparantly this is one of the names such things go by. I'm lead to support deletion, but not per WP:XY. XY, per Tavix, does not apply; what we have here is a gadget that is not discussed in our encyclopedia. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HEAVY

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

Black Mesa Golem Ape

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

The Crumbles (illness)

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

Wario 4

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

Chimneybot hat

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

Zubon

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 28#Zubon

Richard Doty

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

Furry Shadaya

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

Furry Happy Monsters

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

Forkknife

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 28#Forkknife

Fork Knife

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 28#Fork Knife

Henry the Hermit

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

Alex Shrub

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 30#Alex Shrub

unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

[edit]

re-nominating those after this discussion closed as "if only we knew the suffering that would befall us next", but only by a small chunk at a time. same rationale applies cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should note that between then and now, mentions for some characters have been added. from an extremely cursory glance, georg is now mentioned in his target, and... that's it for this list, really. still not entirely sure that would warrant a redirect cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Humphrey Mintz too has mention. Jay 💬 16:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nice-a cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moseley tea service

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Moseley tea service

Kattie

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

Musha-gaeshi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 28#Musha-gaeshi

Foot taboo

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

Ellen feiss

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Ellen feiss

Paul Feiss

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

Adult contemporary progressive death metal

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

FC8671

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 30#FC8671

2.4-dihydroxybenzoic acid

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

Sontochin

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

SN-7619

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#SN-7619

Template:Use Myanmar English

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 30#Template:Use Myanmar English

Criticism of Donald Trump

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Criticism of Donald Trump

Baby gaetz

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

Zhuhui Stadium

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

November 20

[edit]

4 (album) by matisse

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

L̃

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted
User:Web-julio, Justlettersandnumbers didn't close this discussion, they just deleted the redirect. Reopening the discussion doesn't make sense now that the redirect no longer exists. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I answered answered them in my user page talk. I wanted to tag the closer, not them, it was a mistake. Web-julio (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akari Date

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

xxps

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

Criticism of object-oriented programming

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Criticism of object-oriented programming

Helstinki

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

Cricoarytenoid

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

James J. Finn

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

Criticism of George Bush

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 1#Criticism of George Bush

Fisking

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to Glossary of blogging#Fisking

Black Myth: Waking

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

Plannet terror

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 1#Plannet terror

Web interfaces

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

Cute number

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

Work is an honor

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

Northern countries

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

Christmas in the United States, for children of the baby boom era

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete all The article in the history was written by a banned sockpuppet, so I don't think we need to give it much weight.

Here's how Bernie can still win

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

Neurospicy

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

Jackask

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Jackask

September 2017 bridge incident

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 27#September 2017 bridge incident

Unietd States

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

Canadaa

[edit]

Typo with extra "a" added. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't it target Canada (disambiguation) ? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: unambiguous and harmless. Search results show plenty of usage of this typo "in the wild", with "Canada" consistently being the intended meaning [19], ranging from social media posts to websites. There is no reason to delete this, but the very healthy and consistent page view stats [20], WP:CHEAP, and the lack of any ambiguity point to keeping. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

美利坚合众国

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

Crown grant

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

Comprehensive strategic partnership

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

⚭/equaric unicodes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 27#⚭/equaric unicodes

Perplexing Pool

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

Ernest McGillicuddy

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

BO⅂ICE

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

Le4and6

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

Shak.

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

Bill Shakespeare

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

A Night

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

A Child's Garden of Poetry

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

Genoicide

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

Benjamin Franklin (swim coach)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 27#Benjamin Franklin (swim coach)

Unmentioned Pikmin 2 caves

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 27#Unmentioned Pikmin 2 caves

A little temporary security

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

Cilla Single

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 27#Cilla Single

A Sam

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

Fabian'’s lizard

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

Dr A

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

Wonderful; A song from Wicked

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

Thank Goodness

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 27#Thank Goodness

Eytp

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

Eypt

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to EyePoint Pharmaceuticals

Egpyt

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

A .R . EGYPT

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

DuPage 3

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 27#DuPage 3

November 17

[edit]

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 [21] 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 [22] or [23]. 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 [24]. 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]
wouldn't the fact that it was deemed that there weren't enough sources for an article then, and that that's still the case now, be more reason to delete?
i have some level of hope that it might be possible to create that list someday, i just know that that's not today cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am not sure if I could disprove the AfD in the form of establishing this as a notable topic, and I don't currently have the time (or rather priority based on many other open to-do ideas) to make sure one way or another. And that is not the issue. (I'd be for restoring the userfied history as I said. But the history I was originally referring to was the link to the deletion discussion in the talk page.) I am pretty sure that I could create an embedded list, and for that it would be useful to know opinions how (big) such a list should look to make sense. Just as one project utilizing secondary sources on this topic which have not been (fully) used yet. On the other hand, the AfD did establish this redirect, so redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD does not make sense to me. Rather, deleting the redirect would mean overturning the AfD result. But I guess that's within the prerogative of RfD. Looking at the other hits again I am no longer completely sure if it is best to guide the reader to Neverwinter Nights at this point. We do have five characters there currently, and overall commentary, and it fits better to the redirect title. But other hits do have several characters embedded, too. So withdrawing my keep !vote for the time being, but I am still interested in cogsan's answer to my question above. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is on a case-by-case basis, so the best way to put it is
  • general franchises: at least most of the major cast being notable, with some wiggle room for a handful of more important/popular yet not very notable ones
  • general franchises that are really long: if they're not known for more than one character, just go for articles for the few notable ones. otherwise, same criteria seem to apply
  • novels and other such character-heavy franchises (which nn seems to be): there's usually no plan b for if not enough of them are notable for a list, so to quote a wise scorpion, "lol. lmao."
  • pokémon: the best way to describe the situation with pokémon and its (human) characters, and how rules related to notability are treated in its context, is doing multiple backflips in a row to distract people from the question while professor elm keeps his entry
it's a complicated case, but it seems neverwinter nights just plain doesn't have enough notable characters in the first place, "major" or not
and granted, this is for if such a list exists in the first place, and since the answer to that in this case is "not anymore lol", it's really just a matter of deleting and hoping the case changes sometime before the sun goes boom cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, pinging Mark viking, who had suggested the redirect back at the AfD. Daranios (talk) 19:40, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it appears no one wants to close this as it can't be relisted, and has 4 keeps and 4 deletes. I !voted so can't close it, but I would point out that the keep !votes were all obtained in the first 24 hours or so of listing, and that all delete !votes (other than the nom.) followed later. Also that a fifth keep was struck after engagement in the discussion. Discussions are not a vote, and a straight vote count may be giving an erroneous impression of this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised this is still going on a month later. I still feel we would be best served to have the content moved back and kept, but if consensus is going to go to delete, then the old content is still WP:PRESERVED in the user page that I originally noted above. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative

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

Greater Luxembourg

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate Greater Luxembourg, No Consensus on the others

Handwriting expert

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to questioned document examination

Dana Fuller

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

Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital

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

Ra'ad 1

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10#Ra'ad 1

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Squeeze

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

Stars War

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

Radio-Canada

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

Cite web

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

Göbenä

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

Bighead octopus,

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

True positive

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

Ap (ghost)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Ap (ghost)

Atlantoöccipital articulations

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Atlantoöccipital articulations

Hebed

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

Tucker Turner

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

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

Ted, Ned and Ed

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Ted, Ned and Ed

Ultrajectine

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

Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories

Cite AV media

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Cite AV media

Goolge book

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

Googlw

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

GGKEY

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#GGKEY

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1263152516"