Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Request for comment.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 91 50 141
TfD 0 0 0 7 7
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 8 3 11
RfD 0 0 6 10 16
AfD 0 0 0 2 2

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 what should be 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 change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants.

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]


Shortcut

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes
Further information: 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
"WP:RDELETE" redirects here. For revision deletion, see Wikipedia:Revision deletion. For deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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, are an exception to this rule. (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, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, 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. 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 the article texts 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 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
I.
Tag the redirect.

  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.
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.
III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. 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 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]

March 15[edit]

Frivolous[edit]

This is a common English word which doesn't really look like a likely search term for its current target (why would, of all things which could possibly be frivolous, someone be interested only in lawsuits? why not List of frivolous political parties or maybe even the specific legal jargon Frivolous or vexatious, or maybe just the adjective itself [although WP:NOTDICTIONARY is a thing]), nor a useful redirect to anywhere else either (for the same reasons: short of a soft-redirect to Wiktionary, something not usually done for common English words since we assume readers have at least basic English knowledge, there is no good reason to favour one of the many plausible target articles over the others) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revans Institute[edit]

I came across these redirects from a rather confusing hatnote at Revans University. However, my confusion was not alleviated by the target articles. Revans is not even mentioned there! Reg Revans#Legacy is slightly more helpful, but I am concerned that paragraph is unreferenced and full of puffery. Unless anyone is willing to untangle this web, I think deletion would be best. -- Tavix (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North-South divide in Scotland[edit]

This redirect targets a section that has presumably been deleted. There is some discussion of a north-south divide in Scotland in Geography of Scotland#Political Geography so it could be retargeted to that section, not sure if anyone has any better ideas (potentially North-south divide in the United Kingdom but this article seems to discuss a divide between southern England and the rest of the UK, rather than more localised divides within the countries themselves). Bonoahx (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking ED[edit]

Article's title appears to be a fan-made project that has not garnered significant notability. Though it is based on the TV series, that in itself does not merit enough evidence of notability on WP. There is no mention of "The Walking Ed" in the target article. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Eisner[edit]

Delete if possible. Article's subject has no connection to the series it redirects to. One IMDb page exists that does not list the series among this person's credits. No mention in the target article. No notability for the subject other than 10-11 credits listed on IMDb. No awards or nominations. No reason to keep this that I can find. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Since there is no RS to support this (IMDB is not a reliable source), this is not that far from being an unverifiable hoax. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 14[edit]

Edifiying The Ed-Ventures[edit]

Nominating this redirect for deletion as an implausible typo. — Paper Luigi T • C 23:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carotenemia[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: wrong venue

January 18, 2008 (film)[edit]

I couldn't find information about it being a working title or alike. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unlikely for a film to be referenced by the day of its release, and other films were also released on the same day so somewhat WP:UNDUE. Bonoahx (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bonoahx, this seems to be the only redirect of its kind ([release date] (film)) from what I've searched. Regards, SONIC678 02:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive star[edit]

Supermassive stars are a specific type of star theorised in recent years to have existed in the early universe (e.g. [1] ) which should have a page of their own; the wiki-link should not simply redirect to the list of *current* most massive stars observed Fig (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So can we get a consensus to retarget to Stellar population#Population III stars?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Istory of rugby union matches between New Zealand and Wales[edit]

Delete. Unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Up and Over[edit]

The term is nowhere to be found on target page. There is no lowercase entry, but the phrase of often used in WP articles. Unlikely to benefit anybody by repointing. Richhoncho (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise mall[edit]

Maybe disambiguate because of Paradise Center in Sofia and Surfer's Paradise. There are probably other malls called that too. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 18:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of zoology (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete because "History of Zoology" is not ambiguous and the target is not a disambiguation page. Speedy delete previously declined in Oct 19. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an avoided double redirect for History of zoology, which redirects to this section because there is no one article on the topic, but rather two articles: History of zoology through 1859 and History of zoology (1859–present), which are linked at the top of the target section. I think it's reasonable to say, then, that the target section, through its hatnote, performs a disambiguation-like function. It's basically an embedded broad-concept article. I don't think it was really necessary to create this "(disambiguation)" redirect, but there are two articles about the history of zoology, and the target section links to both, so it's not incorrect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kumar (processor)[edit]

This is borderline G6 as unambiguously created in error, but it's been around a few years so I thought better to take it here. Moved from "neurosurgeon" to "processor" 4:38, 29 January 2019. Moved from "processor" to "professor" 4:39, 29 January 2019. Clearly not a plausible disambiguator, as Mr. Kumar is not any of the things that might be referred to as a processor. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and myth[edit]

I'm not sure why this redirect has this target, but since I didn't believe it was R3-worthy, I thought it'd be best that we have a discussion. This may be a notable topic in the future suo jure or perhaps can be used to target a book, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, but since both do not exist I think it would be best to keep it as a redlink. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hatt[edit]

Delete because (a) Simon Hatt is a wheelchair tennis player who is mentioned in several articles, but has no article himself, and (b) the redirect applies to Simon Hatt, a producer on the film The Suicide Squad, who has no article, and no links, and isn't even mentioned in the redirect target article The Suicide Squad (film). Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to allow uninhibited use of Search, which reveals 3 mentions (of the wheelchair tennis player). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation)[edit]

Perhaps somewhat unhelpfully, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation) was closed in 2018 as "Redirect somewhere". It was eventually redirected to Russian Greek Catholic Church with a suitable hatnote. If this is acceptable, then it is clear that Russian Greek Catholic Church is not a disambiguation page and so Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation) should be deleted. I would have used G14 if this wasn't controversial. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment a set index could be created somewhere, to list the Catholic churches in what is now and what was in the past Russia (ie. Russian Empire); which would list the churches, instead of the overview article "Catholic Church in Russia"; then this could be retargetted there, per the AfD outcome (since they seem to want to keep it) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so long as no page exists disambiguating the term "Russian Catholic Church". If such a page is created, retarget there. Or create a DAB/SIA here; the 2018 AfD consensus would only preclude creating it as a DAB for just those two pages. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Grey[edit]

The page should be redirected to gray. Q28 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally supportive as an obvious change, though the redirect isn't protected and there's no history of discussion or edit warring, and this isn't the sort of change one would expect to generate much controversy, so I'm not entirely sure why you didn't just WP:BOLD it. Nonetheless, here it is listed now, and we should wait until the discussion is resolved before doing anything. --HarJIT (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Shades of gray, which includes several colors named or described as dark gray. - Eureka Lott 18:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Revolution of 2013[edit]

There wasn't any 'Ukrainian revolution of 2013', so this seems to be an implausible misnomer. The revolution happened in 2014, and we have an article on it, Revolution of Dignity. The question is, do we delete this redirect, redirect it to Revolution of Dignity (as a potential typo), or leave it tied to the article on the Euromaidan movement, which does include 2013 events (though they were not yet a revolution at that stage)? RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Both articles’ intros support the idea that the protests led to the revolution, and one could conceive of the two as a four-month “revolution.” As a reader following the link is expecting an article about something that started in 2013, I would prefer keeping the redirect as is, but I’m also fine with changing it to the other. —Michael Z. 17:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean toward deletion per WP:XY: Euromaidan was not (generally described by reliable sources as) a revolution, and the Revolution of Dignity did not take place in 2013, so it's not obvious which of the two directions to correct in. However, it's at least a closer to match to the latter (to which Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 redirects, and which does characterize a build-up starting in 2013), so my second choice would be a retarget there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genio[edit]

Not mentioned in article Muhandes (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the March 6th log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alkiviadis[edit]

Anachronistic transliteration that fails WP:RFFL, as the topic has no affinity to modern Greek. Avilich (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question I would put is, how likely is it that someone reading Greek sources—perhaps tour guides or other tourist literature—or recent histories by modern Greek authors—would run across this form, and wonder who it is? If there's even a small possibility that this form is currently in use, and that people might want to look it up on English Wikipedia, then we should keep it unless it's needed for some other purpose. I don't feel confident in my ability to guess whether people would or wouldn't run across it—but if this is a typical rendering in modern Greek, then I would guess it could come up. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are people called AΛKIBIADHC in both ancient and modern times, and I don't see how the modern "Alkiviadis" could more likely refer to the Alcibiades than any other person. There is in Wikipedia a Greek general named Alkiviadis Stefanis, which is itself a better target for the redirect "Alkiviadis" simply for the fact that he has the actual spelling in the name. Another possibility is retargeting to Alcibiades (disambiguation), but this spelling doesn't appear there. Avilich (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 13[edit]

Ukrainian Orthodox Church[edit]

retarget to Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) per [2] @Veverve: Heanor (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Mikalra (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Liz: Is there a reason this shouldn't be closed as retarget (or, rather, that the DAB page shouldn't be moved to this title per WP:DABNAME)? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The situation is fine as it is. The current target details the 2 most obvious meanings and has a hatnote to the disambiguation page which lists the others (and more besides, but that's a different problem). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinocchio: A True Story[edit]

Preemptive creation of an article as a redirect to a disambiguation page, which defeats the purposes of an article, a redirect, and disambiguation. Nardog (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget: I made the redirect for those looking for info about the film in the Wiki. However a disambiguation page redirect may not be the best, so what I can do is specify more on the section that does mention the film on Pinocchio and redirect there instead. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And delete the entry at the disambiguation page (MOS:DABMENTION). If this film becomes notable, it can have an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Woodrow[edit]

Never played MLB, and has been released by Detroit's AA affiliate, so no longer on list. Onel5969 TT me 18:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Kunwari[edit]

I wish to nominate Maan Kunwari for deletion and Princess of Amber for either deletion or conversion to Disambiguation page. Mariam-uz-Zamani was not refer to as Maan Kunwari but as Heer Kunwari or so. And Mariam-uz-Zamani wasn't the only princess of Amber (former state of Jaipur), at least one other princess of Amber has an Wikipedia page. It does not seem right to associate "princess of Amber" with one lady but only two Princess of Amber has seem to have Wikipedia articles. I request to turn this redirect to a disambiguation page or delete it.
Manavati (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about turning Princess of Amber (which I created as a redirect) into a disambig page if there is more than one existing WP page. Dsp13 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penis cola[edit]

Useless and highly unlikely redirect Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Somewhat reluctant weak keep. Google results (alt with sex links filtered out) show that, while many usages of this phrase are in dirty jokes (some related to Peniscola, some coincidental), there is some apparently legitimate confusion [3] [4] [5] [6], and this is generally a plausible mishearing for someone hearing the name "Peniscola" aloud, especially if it's being pronounced by a non-Spanish speaker. However, some usage of the phrase seems to be in mocking reference of Pensacola, Florida, rather than Peniscola, Spain [7] [8], decreasing the search utility here. Although Peniscola already does have a hatnote to its Floridian soundalike (fun fact: etymologically unrelated despite the latter having been colonized by the Spanish). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from incorrect spacing}} (rcat that presently redirects to {{R from misspelling}}) per Tamzin's analysis. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Pastors[edit]

No articles seem to link to it. Indeed, almost nothing links to its target. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus[edit]

This redirect has arisen due to a recent effort to assign a WP:POV title to Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. It is well-established by scholars that the situation was nothing like a "genocide". (Sumantra Bose points out that 32 Hindus were apparently killed, in targeted assassinations.) There is currently an avalanche of edit requests at Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus asking for the page to mention a supposed "genocide". The POV title was also used during the editing of the page on The Kashmir Files, and the redirect linked from it. I think this redirect is too prejudicial and should be deleted. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Another diff added. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

As this redirect is fully protected, I've filed an edit request to tag it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This redirect should be KEPT because multiple recent Reliable Sources such as Hindustan Times have referred to this as Genocide instead of Exodus. Please find few sources below. Old Scholarly hegemony cannot be used as perpetual consensus on Wiki, which must reflect recent reliable sources, as per WP:RS

[1] [2]

  • Delete Delete pursuant to nomination. All scholars use either "exodus" or "migration" or "internal displacement" to describe the condemnable events. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent mention. If a large number of people feel, even incorrectly, that this was a genocide, then that should be discussed in the article (with due weight). Footnotes 21 and 34, both citing page 23 of "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990–2001" by Alexander Evans, support the idea that this is a noteworthy if incorrect perspective. However, so long as the article does not discuss this perspective at any length, there should not be a non-neutral redirect of this sort, as, absent context clarifying such redirects' non-neutrality, they risk putting misstatements in the encyclopedia's voice. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5 § Gaza genocide and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 20 § Gaza Holocaust. If the article does come to cover this perspective, this should be recreated, probably refined to an appropriate section within the article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is beholden to reliable sources, and in controversial subject areas scholarly tertiary sources (See WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:TERTIARY). The most widely-used scholarly textbook on modern Indian history is: Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 2006. says, "The Hindu Pandits, a small but influential elite community who had secured a favorable position, first under the maharajas and then under the successive Congress governments, ... felt under siege as the uprising gathered force. Upwards of 100,000 of approximately 140,000 left the state during the early 1990s; their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right. As the government sought to locate ‘suspects’ and weed out Pakistani ‘infiltrators’, the entire population was subjected to a fierce repression. By the end of the 1990s, the Indian military presence had escalated to approximately one soldier or paramilitary policeman for every five Kashmiris, and some 30,000 people had died in the conflict." It does not mention any genocide of Hindus, only the deaths of 30,000 Muslims at the hands of the Indian security forces. @Tamzin: has misunderstood due weight. I urge them to read WP:TERTIARY. Alexander Evans is not a tertiary source. We don't determine consensus or the lack thereof and then attempt in our own way to quantify it; only scholarly tertiary sources do that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My view is simply that, if there's a fringe view popular enough that many people are coming to Wikipedia to promote it, it probably should be mentioned somewhere. Part of our encyclopedic mission is documenting misconceptions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. True, but it would still be better if the tertiary sources say that or something to that effect; e.g. if the Metcalfs had said, "their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right which characterized the exodus to be a genocide," or somesuch. There probably are such sources. Will look later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think something like this from "Narratives from exile: Kashmiri Pandits and their constructions of the past," which is Mridu Rai's chapter in Kashmir and the Future of South Asia edited by Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Routledge, 2020: Among those who stayed on is Sanjay Tickoo who heads the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (Committee for the Kashmiri Pandits’ Struggle). He had experienced the same threats as the Pandits who left. Yet, though admitting ‘intimidation and violence’ directed at Pandits and four massacres since 1990, he rejects as ‘propaganda’ stories of genocide or mass murder that Pandit organizations outside the Valley have circulated. For all that, Tickoo does not peddle myths of some utopia of communal harmony between Muslims and Pandits existing now or before 1989. He speaks of a distinct embittering of relations between the two communities when the insurgency began. ‘And these shifting sentiments’, he says, ‘were used by politicians on both sides, helping to stoke fear among the Hindu minority’. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Exodus with the hallmark events of a Genocide and Holocaust like events, victims and witnesses of which are still alive needs to be called our as a genocide. Nayan576 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nayan576 (talk · contribs) Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope your stay will be enjoyable. How many Kashmiri Pandits were there in the valley and how many were killed by Muslim separatist groups? In the real Holocaust 6 million Jews were murdered; in the Romani genocide of the Gypsy/Roma people (who had originally migrated to Europe from India) 130,000 to 500,000 were murdered; in the Armenian genocide up to 1.5 million; and in the Cambodian genocide between 1.5 million and 2 million. So again: how many Kashmir pandits were there in the Kashmir valley and how many were murdered by the Muslims? Unless you have watertight scholarly tertiary sources supporting your view, you are using the word "holocaust" lightly, and the inclusion of the edits you propose will be violating WP policy. This is because using "Holocaust" lightly is a form of Holocaust denial. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – inappropriate per WP:RNEUTRAL, as a non-neutral unestablished name (see point #3 and exceptions). Jr8825 • Talk 12:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & WP:RNEUTRAL. دَستخَط، اِفلاق (کَتھ باتھ) 14:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be part of a NPOV push. There doesn't appear to be reliable sources for its use. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 15:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The word genocide has been used for this event by at least two reliable sources that I can find, The Times of India and The Hindu. It is a very likely search term from many people looking for this article.--NØ 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Kashmiri Pandits recreate "exodus" through Jan 19 exhibition". The Hindustan Times. 2020-01-18. Retrieved 2020-01-19.
  2. ^ "When will we finally return home, ask displaced Kashmiri Pandits". Firstpost. 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2021-06-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Molinos en ritmo[edit]

No such term on the target, unable to find more suitable target. Presently no assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neodop. If you wish to add that information to the album article I am happy to withdraw the nomination, but to redirect a reader to a page where there is no relevant information, is not assistance to navigation, but a blind alley. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indie jazz[edit]

The label of "indie jazz" does not appear to be unique to Really From, with one source describing and indie jazz scene in Chicago and additional print sources covering the genre, such as Ross, Jon. "Kickstarter Becomes Crucial Funding Source For Indie Jazz Projects." DOWN BEAT 78.5 (2011): 14-14. While I'm uncertain whether there's enough coverage to write a standalone article about indie jazz, I think that it's misleading to have the redirect point to a single band when there is clearly RS coverage of other groups in this genre. signed, Rosguill talk 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If there is enough sources to turn indie (rock) jazz into an article, then I propose it should be done and the redirect removed.Moline1 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the issue is that it's not currently clear if there's enough for the genre to have an article, but there are enough sources to establish that the term does not unambiguously refer to Really From's oeuvre. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ŘČS[edit]

Redirect from nonexistent acronym. The name "republika československa", apparently in use from 1918 to 1920 and meaning "republic of Czechoslovakia", could be abbreviated RČS but never ŘČS. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and 61 all-time page views - not a plausible misspelling. eviolite (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DXJJ[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search did not turn up any information connecting this call sign to the target radio network. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find anything on this station either. --Lenticel (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angelic Pope[edit]

The Angelic Pope figure and the name Peter II are unrelated. Furthermore, there is no mention of "Angelic Pope" at the target.
The Angelic pope "appears in medieval apocalyptic literature as one who will inaugurate a new Church and a new world, of perfect sanctity" (source).
I think this redirect should be deleted, as it is misleading and per WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. This prophecy seems to be associated with Joachim of Fiore. Maybe a future article can be made for this figure. --Lenticel (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talkquote[edit]

The mainspace and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated as much as possible. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Template:Talkquote exists, meaning that to use this redirect in a template one would have to type an extra character (a leading colon) to achieve the same result. Meanwhile this isn't the kind of content template or even major project template that it might make sense to point people to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason for this cross namespace redirect. Gonnym (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iocane[edit]

I'd like to request two things:

  1. Clarification. The target page does not mention "iocane", so it's unclear why the redirects occur.
  2. Avoid redirecting to a disambiguation page.

Context: I came across the term "iocane" on the WWW and assumed that it was a chemical; looking it up on Wikipedia I was instead redirected to The Princess Bride. Presumably the term "iocane" is connected to this book/movie, but the connection remains unclear.

I generally feel that if a redirect occurs the target page should at least mention the redirected term. Thanks, 188.108.215.90 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fifre[edit]

French and Italian WP:RLOTE; can't find a particular connection with the target. eviolite (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative is to redirect Fifre to The Fifer, a painting called Le Fifre in its native French. eviolite (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tax the rich[edit]

Possibly NPOV as a rallying cry in american politics - I don't think it strictly meets CSD3, and I can't PROD, so here you guys go. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, mentioned at target. Whether it's POV or not doesn't matter. 114.125.94.129 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think the political slogan has received enough attention to warrant a section (just look at the articles about AOCs Met gala dress), made the redirect after noticing it didn't exist yet and this article seemed like the best fit. Will probably expand it later. jonas (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Even though the redirect's title is POV, the article redirects to a more neutral title. Also, the slogan itself may be notable, and could be expanded into an article, per Jonas1015119.2601:647:5800:1A1F:3D52:22A2:17BC:5FC (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify. There are a number of very similar proposals that tax the rich, but this slogan is not exclusively used in the context of a vague progressive tax. The slogan has been used in advocacy for a Financial transaction tax and is eerily similar to the Soak The Rich slogan, which redirects to a different location. “Tax the rich” is also used in contexts that don’t relate to the concept of a progressive tax—in the USA, the term is used in some circumstances to advocate for stricter enforcement of tax evasion laws, which is a different concept entirely than a progressive tax in and of itself. The redirect could also be used to point to wealth tax, which seems to be at least one concrete way in which the slogan is consistently used. Dabification would be the most prudent thing to do, since the slogan appears in multiple contexts and there is no one primary use thereof. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as "Tax the Rich" is a motto for the progressive taxing movement, and is a very plausible searh term. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 11:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • DABify per Mhawk10. Veverve (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All taxes or tax proposals that this could reference are progressive taxes, and disambiguation could never be exhaustive. Unless there is something like List of progressive taxes or similar, the target seems appropriate, and anyone searching the term will find at least some relevant information. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclus (geometry)[edit]

I'm a bit confused here. I can't find any instances of the term "cyclus" being used in geometry in any language, at least from Google Books and other sources. There's this etymological dictionary that indicates a circle or the revolution of a celestial object, which is I guess is similar to "turn" but seems really obscure/archaic and is likely more astronomy-related than geometry. There's also this, which uses it in a German quote that seems to mean something like "the [cycle] of my work in the field of analytical geometry is complete", not related to angles at all. Of note is that the dab page Cyclus does not mention this either, nor does the Turn (angle) article in all of the languages I checked. eviolite (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The term "cyclus" does seem to be used for something related to angles at https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec/536 but that's only one publication and the meaning appears to be somewhat different. I don't think that single usage justifies this redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most probably this is nothing new to you, but since it hasn't been mentioned yet, cyclus is Latin for cycle. At least in Europe, Latin was the lingua franca of sciences, including mathematics, therefore Latin terms are often of historical relevance in many science contexts even if they are not widely used any more. I weakly remember that I have seen this term being used to describe the equivalent of a full angle in an old book, but unfortunately don't remember which book it was exactly. However, it is a reasonable redirect, abbreviations cyc. or cyl. (although today derived from cycle) are in the article. So, for as long as it isn't confused with another topic or is in the way of another article, keep per WP:RKEEP #3 #5 #6. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hit ratio[edit]

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

Beffroi[edit]

Unnecessary WP:RLOTE from French; either delete or possibly redirect to Belfries of Belgium and France (the only term on the dab page relevant to the Francosphere), though the latter does not list the French name of the site at all in prose. eviolite (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Belfry (architecture), which has an extensive etymology section that mentions beffroi. That said, it probably shouldn't have that long an etymology section, and this isn't that plausible a search term, hence the weakness of this !vote. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth tank[edit]

Delete - not mentioned in main article and fictional cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Very kick ass unit but has no significant bearing in real life and in the game's lore--Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Panzer VIII Maus, a real-life tank that had the codename Mammoth, per our article -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modding (Command & Conquer)[edit]

Disambiguation makes no sense, not a believable redirect that people could be looking for. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an {{R from move}} that was at this title for a few weeks in 2007 before being moved to Modding of Command & Conquer, which was then redirected to the main article per an AfD in 2009. I am not sure if there was ever any mention of modding at the target, but we should just leave these redirects per the consensus of the AfD. If someone felt strongly otherwise, I think both redirects should be considered together to reach a new consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6: The other redirect contains the entire article history, although it was entirely WP:OR even at the time. This redirect both has no history to speak of nor makes sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 3 weeks is long enough to collect external links, so we generally keep such redirects from moves. Usually there is no benefit in deletion of such redirects, and if there were content about modding at the target, this redirect would be just fine. The problem here is that in spite of the AfD outcome over a decade ago, there is currently no content at the target. But that's more a question for how to handle the other redirect with the page history. I think as long as that one stays, this one should just be left alone. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I disagree with Mdewman6's arguments. Veverve (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 12[edit]

Atarbekyan[edit]

It is not clear why these redirects target here, which gives rise to a confusing hatnote. "Atarbekyan" is mentioned at Sevan–Hrazdan Cascade and, for a different reason, at Artimet. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the article was originally at Atarbekyan; it was moved to the current title in 2017 and the name Atarbekyan was removed from the article with no explanation. (The sole source cited (GEOnet Names Server) seems to block my IP range as well as my VPN and Tor, so I can't access it.) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajedrez[edit]

Whole load of WP:RLOTEs to Chess (Spanish, French, Portuguese, Turkish, Russian, Arabic, Afrikaans, Breton, Kazakh, Catalan, Czech, Danish, Esperanto, Icelandic, Latvian, Lithuanian, Latin, Mongolian, Norwegian, Turkish (for "check"/"king"), Czech/Slovak, Tagalog/Cebuano, Ukranian, Vietnamese, Hindi, Irish, Volapük, and Punjabi). Some are mentioned in the body of Chess, some in the body of History of Chess, but I don't believe any are particularly connected to chess (besides being spoken in Eurasia as the game spread). My suggestion is Retarget شطرنج to Shatranj and delete all others. eviolite (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it does seem like several of these redirects do get a not-insignificant number of pageviews, so I'm not so sure. eviolite (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@eviolite Well, the popularity does not matter if it is not suitable per WP:RLOTE. See WP:POPULARPAGE. And There's also the redirect שחמט, which I listed in another RfD discussion thread QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 13:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects for discussion is an exception to this provision; a redirect is more likely to be deleted if it receives very few hits, on the grounds that it is implausible, than if it receives many. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: Oh, sorry didn't notice it 😅. Hope you can forgive me lol. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 11:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any that are mentioned, which shows an affinity with the given language. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: I don't believe that is at all the case for most of those. For example, this is the sentence that mentions most of them in History of chess: Thus, the game came to be called ludus scacchorum or scacc(h)i in Latin, scacchi in Italian, escacs in Catalan, échecs in French (Old French eschecs); schaken in Dutch, Schach in German, szachy in Polish, šahs in Latvian, skak in Danish, sjakk in Norwegian, schack in Swedish, šakki in Finnish, šah in South Slavic languages, sakk in Hungarian and şah in Romanian. This does not at all prove affinity with these languages as the article is just listing them with no elaboration on any in particular, and the entire paragraph is also unsourced. eviolite (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are good illustrations of how the evolution of the game affected the naming across these languages (and it is a fascinating thing to map!) I have a very low bar for keeping WP:RFFLs as long as no other issue presents itself, given that they are useful for speakers of the language and those studying where the language and the term in question overlap. I recognize that having RFFLs for any random language is indiscriminate, so being mentioned in the article in some form can establish a "line in the sand", so to speak. -- Tavix (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My primary issue with that is that the sentence is completely unsourced and therefore arbitrarily listing all of these languages together is a form of WP:OR. They really shouldn't be in the article, IMO, but I guess that's not really a thing for RFD to decide. eviolite (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific guidance is sought about which, if any, individual redirects are to be kept out of this bundled list of 28 that are nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget شطرنج to Shatranj and delete all others per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giurtelecu Şimleului Synagogue[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Evocative[edit]

When you describe something as "evocative" you don't mean that it summons demonic hosts. In fact, that meaning isn't even listed by the dictionaries I've checked. A soft redirect to wikt:evocative is conceivable, but I prefer we didn't do that for such common words, and there exist a few partial title matches, which deletion will make more accessible via the search results. On a side note, the first redirect gets a few views each day, but most are unintentional: according to the clickstream data for January, 101 of the 136 views for the month were due to a now removed link from one very popular article. – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Delete 1 and 2 exactly per nom, and 3 as an uncommon misspelling that is ambiguous with the name of a film company. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De Havilland Pirate[edit]

Delete. There's no reference to this as an alternative name for the aircraft in our article, and a Google search does not immediately reveal that it's ever been used as a synonym. No incoming links. Tevildo (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gayest[edit]

Delete: I don't think a superlative should be a redirect to an adjective. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 16:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a particular reason for thinking this? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonAQuest: It's not a common search term. The daily average redirects from this is 0. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 20:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question; it's an unrelated argument. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most redirects get <0 pageviews per day. Some valid redirects get <0 per year. This one, however, got 137 last year, so a bit more than 1 every 3 days. That's definitely a useful redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin, redirect is getting a non-trivial amount of traffic. The term is also relatively common, I think it makes sense to redirect to Gay as Gayest by itself would not warrant an article. Bonoahx (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite precedents like this one, I believe redirects like this aren't helpful. There are limits to how many of the conceivable forms of a headword we can realistically strive to create redirects for, and I'd rather we drew the line before superlatives (-est) or adverbial forms (-ly): with a few exceptions like Coldest or Tallest, we don't normally have such redirects (these are all red: Nicest, Prettiest, Heaviest, Creepiest, Most boring...). One problem specifically with this sort of superlative redirects is that they're unlikely to lead readers to what they want: if someone has made the effort to specifically type out the longer, less common, form, then chances are they aren't looking for the same thing that they could have easily reached by the shorter and more obvious route. If they type "hottest", for example, they're likely interested in finding out about entities with the highest value of the property (hottest things in the Universe? hottest places on Earth?....) rather than an article about the property itself (in this case, Temperature). – Uanfala (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consanguinity (in Canon Law)[edit]

I think it should be turned into a DAB with Consanguinity#Christianity and Affinity (Catholic canon law). However, the capitalisation of the redirect is clearly wrong (it should be "Consanguinity (canon law)", see Canon law). What do you think? Veverve (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If such a DAB is created, it would be reasonable to retarget this there. If this RfD is considering whether to keep or delete, then I'd lean delete. "in" + "Canon Law" is a doubly nonstandard disambiguator. On the other hand, it's been around 16 years and does decent pageviews, so I could also see the case for keeping. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as badly capitalised, and unnecessary disambiguation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bigamy (in Canon Law)[edit]

No mention of this subject at the target. The article Bigamy (canon law) was draftified after this AfD then deleted. The capital letters of the redirect are wrong.
Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drawsko (jezioro)[edit]

These redirect pages have the parenthetical disambiguator "jezioro" (Polish for lake). While they do lead to lakes in Poland, I do not think a disambiguator in a foreign language will be a common search term for readers of the English Wikipedia, and indeed these largely have few pageviews. eviolite (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename I agree with the nominator that a parenthetical disambiguator in Polish doesn't make sense in the English Wikipedia. However, the first three of these terms are ambiguous without disambiguation, therefore we should create redirects using our common " (lake)" disambiguator (or even better, since it would preserve and value the initial editor's contribution, rename (without leaving a redirect behind) the existing redirects accordingly). The last three of these redirects do not (currently) need a disambiguation at all, however, if there is a risk that there are other terms making them ambiguous and therefore we might have to disambiguate these terms in the future, we should proactively create " (lake)" redirects for them as well (marked with {{R from currently unnecessary disambiguation}}), so that links don't have to be changed again and to catch links when someone would routinely use the WP:Pipe trick for lake names like [[LakeName (lake)|]]:
Drawsko (lake) → Drawsko Lake
Gwiazda (lake) → Gwiazda Lake
Dąbrowa Wielka (lake) → Great Dąbrowa
Świdwie (lake) → Świdwie
Wigry (lake) → Wigry Lake
Hańcza (lake) → Hańcza
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Foreign-language disambiguators are too much of a Pandora's box, outside of exceptional circumstances (like if that disambiguator is sometimes used in English-language sources). Any editor can implement Matthiaspaul's suggestion simply by creating those pages, regardless of how this is closed, so I see no need to move the redirects. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "need" to achieve the goal through renaming, (almost) the same effect can also be achieved through a combination of deleting and creating redirects, that's right. The reason I proposed the former rather than the latter is simply because it would preserve the edit history (as small and trivial as it may be in this case). Per our core policy on collaborative editing we are asked to WP:PRESERVE as much of each other's good faith contributions as possible - in this case the original contributor's contribution was faulty so that we have to correct it, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't honour the contributor's good faith attempt to improve this project by creating these redirects. It is my belief that if more editors would try hard to apply the WP:PRESERVE principle under all circumstances where this is possible without creating unreasonable overhead, we would create a more pleasant atmosphere to work in and thereby have more contributors and get better contents. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Moving these redirects would be a violation of WP:MOVEREDIRECT and would misrepresent the edit history. As far as I can tell, D6 created these redirects with the intent of having disambiguations as "(jezioro)" NOT "(lake)". D6 hasn't been around since 2014 so it's unlikely we will get an answer on this, but I decline to assume that a mistake was made, so it is not our business to "fix" these. -- Tavix (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Tamzin, Tavix. There's nothing to stop those redlinks above being created. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doublé[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Computerwoche (0170-5121)[edit]

No reason to have an ISSN in redirect titles (implausible and unnecessary disambiguation), especially as the publication in question does not have a standalone enwiki page. eviolite (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Computerwoche" ("Computer week") and "Computerwelt" ("Computer world") are German titles of publications which in the US are called "Computerworld". Therefore we don't need a separate article about "Computerwoche" and the redirect to "Computerworld" is perfectly accurate. However, there were/are 46 different parallel editions of this publication internationally, some running under the same name, some under similar names, and some even under rather different names. They have some common contents but also country-/language-specific contents and they obviously firm under different ISSNs. In citations, we often link to specific publications rather than only by name. In this case, the different editions of Computerworld and Computerwoche have a common origin (so the corresponding redirects point to the same page), but often enough there are even identically named journals, magazines or newspapers which have nothing at all in common except for the name. In both cases, such similarly or identically named publications need some disambiguation so that they can be linked to specifically and distinguished in reverse lookup ("WhatLinksHere"). In the case of periodicals we quite often use the ISSN as parenthetical disambiguator. So, it is perfectly okay to use the ISSN here as well. In addition to this, we also need to distingish between publications named "Computerwoche" and the (former) company named Computerwoche GmbH. So, for proper linking the disambiguation is necessary.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: I highly doubt any of the other publications/entities known as Computerwoche besides the original German one are notable; there aren't even any articles in dewiki. I can find no evidence that this (or any) redirect with ISSN is helpful; we don't have ISBN redirects for the same reason. I only found one previous RfD for a ISSN-disambiguated page here; though it was from 2009, it closed as Delete.
For the record, I believe this is a complete list of redirects with ISSN as a disambiguator in parentheses:
List
It is possible that I missed some where both the first and second part of the ISSN start with 1 or 2 as it is difficult to differentiate these from date ranges. In any case, all of these have vanishingly little pageviews (10-30 over all time, each) and have no incoming links. If there's consensus to delete this one, all of these should probably be bundled in another nomination. eviolite (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom per WP:RLOTE since the subject of the target article has no affinity to German. Also, the redirect is not used as a loanword in English, meaning if someone is looking up the redirect, they are most likely a native German speaker looking for the article on the German Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: this is not a RLOTE case per se as Computerwoche is a different publication that is mentioned in the target article; however, my concern is the (AFAIK non-standard) use of an ISSN as a disambiguator. eviolite (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Altgrad[edit]

Same as Bogengrad below: unnecessary WP:RLOTE from German. eviolite (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I could agree with the nominator's rationale if this would be a redirect from an "average" foreign language word. However, it is the name of a measurement unit, and therefore it is important to be accurate and to help keeping specific terms in sync regardless of language. A straight-forward literal translation of the term would result in "old grade" and therefore would not be helpful to find the relevant info. This redirect is helpful to reliably forward people running into this term in the (older) scientific and mathematical literature to the relevant contents in our encylopedia. WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 apply. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As additional explanation for those who do not have the international perspective:
    Altgrad is a (meanwhile almost historical) term used for what is otherwise just called Grad in Germany (but degré in France), typically firming under the label "DEG" on electronic calculators. It was introduced to distinguish it from the Neugrad (grade nouveau), which is meanwhile also called gon and grad in English (and grade in France), designated as "GRAD" or "GRD" on calculators. As you can see, the seemingly simple term [G/g]rad, even if narrowing the scope of use to angular units only (so we rule out °C, °F, °DIN and many other uses), is highly ambiguous to an international audience and can mean completely different things in different contexts. On top of this, the literal translation of Altgrad would result in "old grade", not degree. Therefore, it is important to be specific and to make it as difficult as possible for users to confuse the units when they run into them in the (older) literature.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom per WP:RLOTE since the subject of the target article has no affinity to German. Also, the redirect is not used as a loanword in English, meaning if someone is looking up the redirect, they are most likely a native German speaker looking for the article on the German Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think, the redirect is helpful to anyone of our international audience capable of reading German scientific or mathematical literature. People, who are multilingual, read books for the information in them regardless of language and place of publication, and in the case of historical works they have no choice but to read them in their original language, anyway. They probably don't have problems reading the formulas, but might have problems to understand the prose. As an international encyclopedia for anyone, it is our duty to make information as easily and reliably accessible to anyone as possible. That's why it is important that they find the correct information about degrees when they enter Altgrad into our search engine. We can't and shouldn't do this for any average word, but I consider it important to do it in this case because it is the very purpose of measurement units to be understood globally (that's why many of the modern units (although not this older one) have identical or at least very similar names in different languages, sometimes even codified in the standards or specifications definining them).
    In regard to WP:RLOTE, I consider this case to be on a middle ground between what is appropriate and what is not, so it is up for us to decide. The question we have to ask is if the redirect can be helpful at least to some users, or not. I found it useful and not to be in the way of any potentially to be created article. Also, its existence cannot cause any kind of confusion, there are no "false friends" in other languages. Since WP:RLOTE is only an explanatory supplement, not a guideline, I consider our guideline WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 to have priority here.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...TLDR to the max, like usual. But either way, I read the first sentence, and RLOTE recommends the opposite of why you cited it for the reason I stated. Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I fail to see why a measurement unit has some special status that makes it different from other foreign-language redirects. I see 99 GHits in English for this term (filtering out some about an auto parts store), most of which are either dictionaries or not actually in English. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Failing to see a reason" might not be the strongest of arguments if other editors do see enough reason to create the redirect, but it's definitely on a middle ground per WP:RLOTE. The reason why I lean towards Keeping is because I see the redirect's usefulness in reducing the risk of causing confusion among the many different types of "grades" and "degrees" as measurement units. For me, measurement units stand somewhat out of average words like "flower" (for which we certainly do not need a redirect from the German translation "Blume") because of their very purpose to enable reliable comparison and reproduction, anywhere and at any time. This requires that they are universally understood, or at least not be mixed up. And redirecting some older (in this case common foreign language) terms to the corresponding modern English terms can help in this endeavour. Our article has a number of prominent examples what can go wrong if units are mixed up.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Failing to see a reason" was my polite way to say "You haven't given a good reason". You're just saying that units of measurement are particularly important, but the same could be said of many other things. Languages themselves are very important in international communication; shall we have redirects for every language's term for every other language? Furthermore, this redirect won't help avoid any measurement-confusion-based disasters, since it doesn't actually tell readers what an altgrad is. It just lets them know that it is a term in some way related to degrees, without telling them what that relation is. If a reader wants to use a Wikimedia site to find out what altgrad means, they can consult wikt:altgrad. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brageirac (vila)[edit]

While the name of the commune is in the native Occitan, the disambiguator "vila" does not appear to be in English, French, or Occitan (rather Portuguese/Galician/Catalan), so is inappropriate for a redirect. This redirect was created at AFC with the simple reason "native name", which does not explain the disambiguator. eviolite (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bogengrad[edit]

German translation with no mention or justification in article; delete per WP:RLOTE. eviolite (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I could agree with the nominator's rationale if this would be a redirect from an "average" foreign language word. However, it is the name of a measurement unit, and therefore it is important to be accurate and to help keeping specific terms in sync regardless of language. A straight-forward literal translation of the term would result in "bow grade" and therefore would not be helpful to find the relevant info. This redirect is helpful to reliably forward people running into this term in the (older) scientific and mathematical literature to the relevant contents in our encylopedia. WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 apply. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom per WP:RLOTE since the subject of the target article has no affinity to German. Also, the redirect is not used as a loanword in English, meaning if someone is looking up the redirect, they are most likely a native German speaker looking for the article on the German Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I fail to see why a measurement unit has some special status that makes it different from other foreign-language redirects. I see 71 GHits in English for this term, most of which are either dictionaries or not actually in English. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Universe (physics)[edit]

There is no mention at all of "Electric Universe" at the target article "Plasma Cosmology".

Discussion at the Talk page of the target article also suggested that there is no direct link. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is probably more accurate to say that discussion on the target talk page suggested that there was no link verifiable by reliable sources, but it amounts to much the same thing. If we can't source a linkage between the subjects, we can't discuss it. And if we can't discuss it, we shouldn't leave readers wondering why the redirect exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The redirect was created when Electric Universe was deleted in 2007. There are very few reliable sources for either EU or Plasma Cosmology, and both are very WP:FRINGE. Evidence that the redirect should exist: the plasma cosmology people say they're the same (not a reliable source, except that the people who still care about this idea claim they're related), and a one-liner from Forbes (noting their "absurd conflict with observations" in an article about various alternatives to the big bang). What we don't want is the redirect replaced with an actual article: that would be a much worse outcome. - Parejkoj (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or rename to Electric Universe (pseudoscience). From all I was able to find on this, this term refers to one or even several plasma cosmology "theories", which are all esotheric and outside of normal science. However, as an encyclopedia we have a duty to remain neutral on this and just document what is, not "is" in the meaning of that it is scientifically backed up (which it is not), but in the sense that the term exists and is used by (some) people out there - and the fact that the term is in use in certain circles (since apparently the 1960s) can be easily checked using Google. According to one book cover, it is a variant of plasma cosmology, so a redirect flagged with {{R to related}} appears to be appropriate. My point is, we are not doing our readers a service when we do not have an entry for this term at all as people might run into it in the net or elsewhere and expect to find more on it in Wikipedia, and the minimum service we can do is to direct them to the most closely related content we have. Ideally, the term should be briefly mentioned in the target article, but this is not a requirement for redirects to exist, they just need to be helpful. Even if all we can or want to say about the topic is that it is esotheric and pseudoscience related to plasma cosmology, we are already doing our readers an important service instead of passing the opportunity to educate them and leave them clueless about it at all. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We only have to "remain neutral" within the bounds of reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources we could use? - Parejkoj (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The target article (Plasma Cosmology) currently lacks any mention of the incoming redirect from E.U. Any 'keep' needs to be accompanied by a proposal to write, cite and maintain something at the target article that acknowledges and explains why E.U. is redirected to it. What is the proposal for E.U. text at the target article? Without that, wouldn't the redirect be inconsistent? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Feline Hymnic|. Veverve (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I have added a one-sentence mention of EU to the PC article, with a link to the Forbes article, since that's probably the only reliable source we can link to. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation)[edit]

No longer needed - the target is now a set index article and there are no incoming links. Leschnei (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since a set index performs the same function as a disambiguation page, and this redirect can be used to explicitly link to it. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mdewman6. The only reason set indexes are separate from disambiguation pages is overly-rigid formatting rules for the latter, and we cannot expect anyone to predict which of the two a given page will be technically described as. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no purpose remains. Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) has been merged to Twin Peaks (disambiguation)#Utah to resolve the WP:INCOMPDAB issue. The double disambiguation is implausible as a search term, and because the separate page no longer exists it should not be used for linking purposes. -- Tavix (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The doubly qualified redirect is useful only for a wikilink referring collectively to all places called Twin Peaks in Salt Lake County, Utah. No article does that, and it's unlikely that one ever will. Some SIAs do have (disambiguation) redirects, but in this case the target is now a dab section and there is no longer an SIA to target. Certes (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nomination was rendered moot by Tavix's conversion of the target to a redirect (which IMO should not haave been done during the RfD, although I endorse it on the merits). * Pppery * it has begun... 05:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no incoming links, and target is no longer a disambiguation. Jay (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This redirects to a page that disambiguates the term "Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah)", exactly as advertised. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almighty (rapper)[edit]

Not mentioned on target. Also WP:RDELETE #10 applies: could plausibly be expanded into an article, translating Almighty which seems to have quite a number of reliable sources. Muhandes (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's kind of a catch 22. The artist likely isn't worth mentioning at a music genre article without its own article for context, and if it has its own article, no redirect is necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Almighty Jay. Jay (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same artist, why would we want to do that? --Muhandes (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almighty Jay is a rapper who has an article on Wikipedia. I would believe Almighty is not a typical first name, the rapper disambiguation helps in differentiating it from almighty, and the redirect will help the reader find the rapper's page. Whether this rapper is not the same as another artist is not relevant. Jay (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and too vague. Veverve (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why vague? How many rappers are there who have the name Alimighty? Jay (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 11[edit]

Wikipedia:PCM[edit]

I was astonished to find this targets WikiProject Medicine, as there is no obvious indication what this initialism means. Very few page views, no incoming mainspace links. Unless there is a justification, I think this would be better as a shortcut to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves as an initialism for "potentially controversial moves" Mdewman6 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is from WikiProject:Preclinical Medicine, which was merged with WikiProject:Clinical Medicince to form WikiProject Medicine. Since there is no preclinical section that persists to target this to and "preclinical" is barely mentioned at target, I still feel this might be of more use elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, WP:CM targets (appropriately) WP:WikiProject Classical Music, so it's not like there is precedent to preserve these shortcuts for defunct WikiProjects that were folded into a more encompassing WikiProject. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empyrean (Warhammer)[edit]

The section to which this redirect points no longer exists. It was presumably removed as fancruft some time ago. "Warhammer" or "Empyrean" is not mentioned in the target page. Sandstein 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ben Mattias[edit]

Unlikely combinations of English, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic, with mispellings, sometimes all in the same redirect. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it honestly seems like a reasonable mistake people would make. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the other thousands of possible combinations, no doubt. No reason to favor these specifically. Avilich (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but Mattatyahu ben Yosef (delete that one) because, as much of a mishmash as they are, Google annoyingly reveals them to be in actual use in sources that identify one or another of them as his "real" name. Largoplazo (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak refine Mattatyahu ben Yosef to § Biography, as that's a valid (if obscure) rendering of Josephus' father's name. Keep the rest per above. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need consensus for Mattatyahu ben Yosef.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first two as reasonable guesses (not sure about the capitalization of "Ben" being likely, but the spellings are); not sure about the others being likely search targets—they don't look very plausible to me, at least for English speakers (and this is English Wikipedia—someone looking for a more literal transliteration is likely to reach the article from a different language Wiki; Josephus would probably have articles in most). P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodbender[edit]

Not mentioned in that get article, leaving the connection between the redirect and its target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Bloodbending is a plot element in the season 3 episode "The Puppetmaster", but I'm undecided if Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) would make for a good redirect target or not.--AlexandraIDV 15:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since redirects are cheap, and this, as seen above, is mentioned in an episode, so I see no reason to delete this article. The whole point of RFA is to delete potentially problematic redirects, this is not that. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Umm, no. As mentioned above and by myself, the redirect targeting its current target is unhelpful due to its lack of identifying it in the target article, in addition to potential alternative target(s) existing. Anyone trying to understand what the redirect's subject represents will currently be led to nothing in the article (just mention in an episode is not enough; making that claim is akin to a WP:NOTFANDOM issue), meaning WP:RDEL (probably point #2) applies. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_(season_3)#ep48, where it's discussed the most... or just to the whole season page, as it is discussed later as well at #ep56. Without prejudice against a subsequent retarget somewhere else if a better target emerges. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No color[edit]

I don't think "No color" is an alternative name for "Black and white", and not a very popular search term. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to No Color I guess, assuming it's referring to printers but too broad a term. Bonoahx (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to colourless. Jay (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever you want I don't care I was a moron back in 2007 who didn't know what the hell he was doing. I made a lot of pointless redirects with no thought put into them at all and it wouldn't surprise me if this was one of them. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page to other aforementioned articles/pages. C933103 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to No Color. There's no need for a disambiguation page here: put {{distinguish}} at No Color. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Brightman[edit]

Delete as there is no evidence for use of this title. FDent (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Fiasco[edit]

This phrase is not used at the target, and has been used in a variety of contexts, including in this journal article on the First Chechen War. Even with the huge weight of current events and my Ukraine-heavy search history influencing the results, Google's first page doesn't give me a single thing on the current fiasco, instead reaching as far back as the Russian Civil War. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TERF-related redirects[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

These terms are very similar and often used in virtually same context, but they currently point to different redirect targets. It might be fine to unify the redirect target of these terms, but I am not sure which target is better in this case. C933103 (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the arguments made in the past, I guess the question is, does the phrase "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" (or any variant thereof) have a significantly different meaning than the acronym "TERF"? On the one hand, the article TERF is about the acronym itself, not the concept. On the other hand, the phrase "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is rarely used as anything other than an expansion of that acronym (actual GHit count: 147). Indeed, most people who object to the term "TERF" also object to the term "trans-excusionary radical feminist", as they tend to see themselves as protecting cis women rather than excluding trans women. So this isn't a case of a redirect for a neutral term going to an article on criticism of that concept. "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is a decidedly non-neutral term, almost exclusively associated with the word "TERF", and thus I think we should synchronize at TERF. The only remaining objection I see is that "TERF" is sometimes used to describe people who are not actually radical feminists (not meant in a No true Scotsman way, like, people who are not and do not claim to be), but I'm not sure the expanded forms are immunte to that either. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that, I find the term "trans[-]exclusive radical feminist[/ists/ism]" being a bit more commonly used than "trans[-]exclusionary radical feminist[/ists/ism]", but they currently have no redirect links. C933103 (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have only tagged Trans-exclusionary radical feminism so is that the only redirect you are proposing be changed? Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism except for TERFism. It seems to me that if people are searching or linking to the full term, they would want the article that discusses the ideology, not just the term itself. "TERFism" can stay at TERF as that one explains the meaning of the acronym. Crossroads -talk- 00:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an ideology called "trans-exclusionary radical feminism"? Or is that a term only used in the same contexts as "TERF" is, to describe an ideology (or set of ideologies) whose adherents usually reject that label? In the latter case, it's generally better to "cover the controversy", i.e. redirect to an article that covers a term's usage rather than what it's used to refer to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think (and this is hearsay so I might be wrong) that the term TERF was invented by people who called themselves TERFs and then it gained a negative connotation and they stopped using it. casualdejekyll 01:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article on the matter says that it was "popularized" by a trans-inclusive radical feminist, but doesn't say where it originates. Either way, my point stands that neither "TERF" nor its expanded forms are labels people tend to self-assign (although there are of course exceptions). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I support @Crossroads. "Gender critical" and its variations redirect to that sections of "Feminist views on transgender topics" and so should "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" and its variations. AndyGordon (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to TERF, since this is literally what "TERF" stands for, and there is a hatnote (and wikilink) to the other candidate article. Keep it simple. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TP:TI[edit]

Unused pseudo-namespace shortcut, the only of its kind. While "T:" is a valid pseudonamespace for limited purposes (probably not including this) per WP:PNS and WP:SHORTCUT, there is no consensus for a "TP" pseudonamespace, and there's been an understanding for quite some time that no new pseudonamespaces should be created. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - tbh, I don't the history behind: "there's been an understanding for quite some time that no new pseudonamespaces should be created" - but I've thought an abbreviation/short cut for "template" would be handy (much like the abbr/short cuts we have so many other things). Why not have "TP" as an abbr/short cut for all templates? - wolf 22:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because unlike, say, "WP:" shortcuts—which are created dynamically expanded to non-shortcut form by the software, don't add any maintenance burden, and, most importantly, aren't pages in mainspace, or even pages at all—creating a system of "TP:" pseudonamespace shortcuts would mean creating new redirects for every template someone sees fit to do so for, all with their own maintenance burden, all cluttering up things like Special:AllPages for anyone looking for mainspace content. The consensus I referred to—and which I should have linked, but couldn't find at the moment of writing this nomination—is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112 § RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts: There is consensus that new "pseudo-namespace" redirects ("MOS:", "T:", etc) should be strongly discouraged if not prohibited in all but exceptional cases. As such, if someone wishes to establish a pseudonamespace for templates (or to expand the existing "T:" pseudonamespace, which is currently limited to a small number of legacy cases like T:DYK), they should open a discussion at WP:VPR. The same if someone wants to propose an actual namespace alias for "TP:", like "WP:" and "WT:", although I think that is very unlikely to get consensus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC), ed. 17:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlinked and inappropriate CNR. eviolite (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per existing consensus against new pseudonamespaces. – Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P:TUVALU[edit]

Per WP:SHORTCUT, "P:" pseudonamespace redirects are meant for portals, not WikiProjects. Suggest retarget to Portal:Tuvalu. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on my part. Aridd (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom casualdejekyll 14:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget/support per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top radio[edit]

Encourage article creation for either Top Radio (Nigeria), Top Radio (Spain) (no article in any wiki but it's a station in Madrid), or de:Radio Top. An IP attempted to blank this redirect in 2012. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • disambiguate to the current list (top radio programmes), the German interwiki link, the TOPradio. Since it is a lowercase "r" it wouldn't be any of the three suggested topics at the top of the nomination -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous, and no suitable current targets. However, if "TOPradio" is pronounced as "Top radio", then we have a case to retarget there. For the current target, we already have helpful redirects Top radio program and Top radio show. Jay (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different options proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Top radio (disambiguation) page is in order. casualdejekyll 14:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Albums Sales[edit]

There's also US Top Album Sales. As-is, name too vague to mean one specific chart. George Ho (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three options offered here. Break the tie.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Albums[edit]

The retarget name as-is looks too vague to mean one specific thing. It may also mean Billboard Top 200 or any other albums chart. Also, it's linked by only one article at the moment. George Ho (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relisting, hoping to get a third opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Billboard 200 - main billboard's album chart a more likely search target than Japanese billboard's, especially in English. They call their song chart Hot 100 so it would be a reasonable assumption for them to call their album chart Hot 200 as well casualdejekyll 14:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Josefo[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

יוסף בן מתתיהו[edit]

Translation of "Joseph son of Matthias" to modern Hebrew, which falls under WP:RFFL as Flavius isn't a Hebrew name, and this is just another editor's conjectural reconstruction in a modern language, and there is no evidence of what his actual name in Hebrew sounded like during his lifetime. Also, not mentioned in the article. Avilich (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as a Hebrew speaker, the name "Flavius" is not mentioned in the redirect. It's translation is "Yosef, son of Matityahu" --93.123.119.139 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My translator got bad for a moment, and I amended the statement accordingly, but there's more to the argument than that, and it should still be deleted. Avilich (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's amended statement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's known in modern Israel as "Joseph son of Matthias", that much is clear, but that has no relevance for a figure that lived thousands of years ago. RFFL#1 and #2 aren't met here. Avilich (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A figure that lived thousands of years ago... in present-day Israel. You know, that place that speaks Hebrew? קז'ואל של ג'קיל/casualdejekyll 01:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew wasn't the standard language at the time, nor probably the one he wrote in. There is no evidence of how he was referred to in Hebrew, so the use of a modern reconstruction such as "Joseph son of Matthias" in modern Hebrew has no more justification under RFFL than any other rendition in any other modern language. Avilich (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan War (2001–current)[edit]

As the war has officially ended, we should rename and delete these redirects. Redirects are cheap, but they should not be misleading. Anarchyte (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Afghan War (2001–current) as it has essentially no page traffic. Keep Afghan War (2001-current) as it has a bit of traffic probably due to incoming links. I don't think the redirects are necessarily misleading; they're just out of date. If a redirect has existed for long enough and has enough page views, it makes sense to keep as long as it can't reasonably be superseded by this and seeing that there's no other ongoing Afghan war that began in 2001, I don't think that is a huge risk. TartarTorte 15:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TartarTorte: The question then becomes when is "current" truly misleading? In 2025, 2030? People can type "Afghan War" or "War in Afghanistan" into the search bar and they'll be presented with links that say "Current". That will definitely lead to confusion eventually. Anarchyte (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about others below? Sawol (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects with "to present"
  • @Sawol: I would also want those renamed, but I'll note that some of the 2015 redirects have substantive history that we should not delete. If this RfD is successful, we can discuss the rest after. Anarchyte (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. No reason to delete one and not the other (and by keep all, I mean all of the ones raised by Sawol also). It has been less than a year. These aren't ambiguous with anything, so deletion doesn't provide any positive utility, just runs the risk of breaking external links. A7V2 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has expanded way beyond the initial proposal. I think this RFD should not just be relisted but restarted as it is unlikely that those who have already participated will return to see the change that occurred. What do you think, Anarchyte? Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the restarting. This is a mess. I can't tell what the original proposal was, but all the older votes should be essentially nullified, IMO. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also links like War in Afghanistan (2001-) not covered by the current discussion. C933103 (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" is the previous name of the page. It is linked to from a lot of places (including Al-Qaeda), and the introduction of the RfD tag to the redirect page actually broke it. Regarding the actual proposal, this seems like it will break a lot of things (especially external links) and deleting them because they're "misleading" is not very convincing IMO. 212.21.42.228 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutive nations[edit]

Delete not mentioned in the target. Or retarget to Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina as {{R avoided double redirect}} for Constitutive nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thesmp (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could there be some agreement on retarget page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand into article according to other Wikipedia language edition articles in d:Q1763527.C933103 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SCP Level 0[edit]

Not mentioned in the article, most likely a reference to the fictional SCP Foundation, which uses this term to refer to janitors (or other jobs) at secure sites whom would not have access to classified information. Not sure what the implication is, but.. casualdejekyll 03:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered that the creator of the article User talk:LittleG jr. has been engaged in much more blatant SCP vandalism in the past. In case that influences your !vote. casualdejekyll 03:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This page was originally an attempt at an article for the usage of the SCP Foundation community, but was redirected by Vanjagenije; I agree that the current redirect is not helpful while the original article would have likely qualified for e.g. A7. eviolite (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of internet[edit]

I went back and forth on these two, considering speedy deletion as an implausible misnomer, just as I did for Socialism of internet and Communism of internet. I ultimately thought that a reasonable person might disagree with me, so I am taking them to RfD for discussion. Delete as implausible. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first one delete the second one. "Economics of internet" can reasonably be used to find articles that mention internet economic activity, thus e-commerce seems like a reasonable redirect target. However "Capitalism of internet" is talking about an idea/ideology/whatever, and any redirect with such title should target a page that specifically describe the discussion of such on the internet. As there doesn't apparently exists such page on English Wikipedia now, I think the second redirect should be deleted. C933103 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future Event List[edit]

Overcapitalized unused redirect; I moved the redirect to Future event list to make it usable in article text, which left this redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since the only rationale for deletion is due to capitalization, this looks to be a valid {{R from alternative capitalization}}. Since you moved it, this should also be kept as a {{R from move}}. I don't understand the point of moving it though. If you didn't think "Future Event List" was a good redirect, you should have just nominated that for deletion instead of performing a WP:MOVEREDIRECT. That aside, I'm not sure Future event list is a good redirect—it's not defined at the target (and "future" isn't even mentioned!). -- Tavix (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this discussion didn't play out the way I thought it would. Delete both per Jay. -- Tavix (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle with related redirect that has been proposed for deletion by Jay
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the March 2nd log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 10[edit]

IPhone 8 (2nd generation)[edit]

I think this redirect page is unnecessary. Hajoon0102 💬 23:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redirect doesn't make sense. I can't find any sources that refer to the 2nd gen iPhone SE as "iPhone 8 (2nd generation)" and that isn't how Apple generally name iPhones anyway. Bonoahx (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OIIIIIIIO[edit]

It appears pageviews suggests that there have only been 29 pageviews of this article during its entire history. The redirect doesn't appear to be something most people are actually going to use. Does this need to exist? ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 22:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The title is an ASCII representation of a Jeep grille and headlamps, so I can see why it was created. However, it doesn't seem encyclopedic and is hardly a plausible search term. --Sable232 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a nonsense redirect but doesn't seem plausible, only search results for the term is an Urban Dictionary entry and social media, which make it clear that it represents Jeep. Bonoahx (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of leap years[edit]

There is no list of leap years anywhere on the target page, so this redirect should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should there be. Delete as pointless. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N,[edit]

Seems to be a non-standard representation of the IPA character "ŋ", and doesn't appear in conventional remappings like X-SAMPA. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Eng (letter). I think this is a plausible search term. Nevertheless, I would certainly be fine with deletion if others favor that. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the comma meant to be a visual cue for the downward hook of the letter? In that case, it's a bit more plausible for the (noticeably rarer) n with comma/cedilla below Ņ. – Uanfala (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the goal was a way to represent the Greek letter using a standard keyboard (a lowercase n plus a comma, so "n,"). Hence, if kept, retarget to the article about the letter rather than the sound it represents. Based on the location of the comma, I think it's closer to Eng than a cedilla under an N, but I don't feel strongly, and maybe the ambiguity and low plausibilty suggest deletion would be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that both the hook and the cedilla appear under the letter, and the cedilla looks more like a comma than a hook, then I think Ņ would be a much better target. That would also match C, (which redirects to Ç), though there doesn't seem to be corresponding redirects for most of the other cedilla versions of letters, like D, -> Ḑ/D̦. – Uanfala (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Ņ is just a redirect to Cedilla (Ç being much, much more notable than Ņ). I agree we should try to treat these analogously, but as you say, ŋ is much more prevalent than Ņ. Retargeting a specific letter with a comma to cedilla doesn't seem very solid. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G.D. Goenka School and G.d goenka. public school[edit]

redirect is reasonably old and abandoned. Not required and useful in anyways. BeLucky (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The revolution of farmers[edit]

R from move leftover from the page's early history, when it stood at this title for ten days following creation, before being renamed. There's probably a better target, but I'm not sure what that would be. If one isn't identified, deletion would be best. Paul_012 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loveleen Mishra[edit]

Hum Log is a DAB page, and a useless target. Loveleen Mishra is an actress who has appeared in Hum Log (television series), but also elsewhere; see her IMDb entry. Delete, to encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumoultramicroscopicsilicanovolcanoconiosis[edit]

Currently redirects to Longest word in English but an article for the word has been created in the meantime. Suggesting either a retarget to Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis as R from misspelling, or potentially deletion, I can only find two Google results with this misspelling that are WP:CIRCULAR, from an Italian-language version of Longest word in English. Bonoahx (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For anyone else trying to parse the typos here, it's "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicanovolcanoconiosis". Either of those typos on its own would be fairly implausible, and taken together they add up to something very implausible. This was an article for a few hours in 2006, but only a sentence long, redirected as a duplicate; its pageviews since then are nontrivial, but low enough that I find it unlikely that they're the result of any external dependency (and more likely the result of search suggestions or such). Delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tamzin. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Two errors is too many. Narky Blert (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golden orb[edit]

The redirect may refer to other things, like Maya the Bee: The Golden Orb or an object of the same name mentioned in either Part 3 (Twin Peaks) or Dragon Quest V. George Ho (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, just convert it to a dab page; no need for discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz CLT-Class[edit]

The only reference to this I can find anywhere is this article [14] published one day after the redirect was created (but that could be a timezone issue I suppose) claiming the CLT would be shown in Paris. It's safe to say that didn't happen and that nothing ever came of this rumoured model. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The CLT was a real concept car that gets referenced by even Mercedes Dealerships in their modern marketing materials. In fact, both the modern marketing materials and the automotive snooping sites reference a “shooting brake” design, which makes me think that this was a real concept car. It looks to me like this might just be the CLA under an in-development name, but that would be a bit OR-y to explicitly claim. In any case, the CLT was clearly a real thing, though it never made it to mass production under that title. I see no harm in keeping the redirect under these circumstances. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect was created back in 2008 when the "spy shots" of this supposed new model (I personally wouldn't consider them a reliable source) were taken. It's unlikely that the dealership describing the proposed CLT is referring to the same model, and I wouldn't say it is evidence that this is "real" as it is more of a vague reference when describing something else. In any case, there is no mention at the target, so keeping this redirect would serve only to mislead or confuse anyone searching this term. A7V2 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conjuration[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedurally closed

Mercedes-Benz T-Class[edit]

Both of these are rumoured/recently announced new models (see for example [15], [16] for the CLE, [17] and [18] for the T-Class) with no information or mention at the target or anywhere on wikipedia. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Mercedes-Benz T-class is a real thing and it's made by Mercedes. The all-electric version of the van will be called the EQT, which itself is a concept car still listed on the Mercedes-Benz website. The T-class has been covered by enough sources that a redirect is warranted, at minimum. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not questioning that information exists about these. A redirect is not warranted, however, if there is no information at the target. That is one of the "reasons to delete". WP:RFD#DELETE number 10 seems to apply here. But we should not be keeping redirects just because information exists about the subject elsewhere. A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueHybrid[edit]

The only mention of any kind at the current target is a part of the model name Mercedes-Benz S400 BlueHYBRID which itself is a redirect to Mercedes-Benz S-Class where the only mention is that same model name as a caption of a photo. Looking online it seems like this was the only "BlueHYBRID" model, and was only ever a prototype [19] and given the lack of recent articles I suppose it was abandoned. So potentially we could retarget to Mercedes-Benz S-Class but I would prefer deletion unless a better target can be found. A7V2 (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W221)#S 400 Hybrid (2009–2013). BlueHYBRID is definitely a real thing that Mercedes-Benz has used in its products. The 2010 S-Class BlueHYBRID itself has been significantly covered by Car and Driver, CNET, and Motor Trend, and Autoweek, as well as being explicitly mentioned in this Edmunds review of the 2010 S-class. This is much more than enough that is needed to establish that the existence of a redirect is acceptable. But, considering that the only use of the term appears to be in a designation for the 5th generation S-class, it seems better for the redirect to go there than to generally go to the Mercedes-Benz page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had meant that the "name" had been abandoned (since I imagine the redirect was created thinking they would use it for several models). But in any case your suggested target seems quite appropriate. I will WP:BOLDly retarget Mercedes-Benz S400 BlueHYBRID there now. A7V2 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Produce[edit]

Someone searching for "fresh produce" is likely to be looking for the topic Produce rather than a compilation album. For that matter, fresh produce is a red link. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 07:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*(Creator of the redirect here) Surely this doesn't need a discussion? Wouldn't it be easier by being bold by changing the redirect to produce and then creating Fresh Produce (album) to link to Seaway (band)? MusicforthePeople (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so clear that that is what should be done, why didn't you do it when you created the redirect? You added categories and talk page content specific to albums to the current redirect, so it's not just a simple retarget. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't occur to me at the time; I guess I thought it would be an obvious redirect (fresh produce to produce) that should've already existed. I support Mdewman6's suggestion. MusicforthePeople (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dick pic program[edit]

Seems to be derived from a joke featured on the television show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, shown here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Except that it’s not a joke. The NSA is/was passing around pictures of naked people, and as laid out in the linked article various intelligence agencies collect bucketloads of data, it can’t be ruled out dick pics are collected too. Edward Snowden himself said in the interview, “Well, the good news is there is [= in 2012] no program named the ‘Dick Pic Program’, the bad news is they are still collecting everybody’s information. Including the dick pics.” The confusion is certainly there. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 12:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of mention at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to a prominent mention on a popular tv show and sourced quote from Snowden. It doesn't need a mention in the article, it just needs to be useful for someone searching for information... and it is certainly plausible that someone would have seen the John Oliver episode, but not be able to remember the real and official name, given that "Dick pic program" is so memorable in comparison. Redirects are cheap, and this one is pretty unambiguous. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No mention at the target. Implausible search term, with little or no pageviews. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pppery and CX Zoom: “No mention at the target” is really a non-issue. It can easily be fixed. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 11:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've added one sentence that lacks necessary context and screams of undue weight. I guess as long as that content exists the redirect should be kept (and refined to Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)#Reactions of citizens), but it feels bolted on to make a point, rather than a legitimate part of the article. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kai Burghardt has added a mention at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wine cats[edit]

Fear not, my last of the day. "Wine cats" could refer to a number of things, such as this book. It's surprising for this combination of two common words to instead link to an obscure projectspace subpage. No backlinks, low pageviews, and of course no way to know if readers visiting this link found what they were looking for. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A redirect like that tickles the curiosity, but obviously disappoints. It would make sense only in project space and then ideally as a shortcut (WP:WINECATS?, but that already exists and goes to a somewhat different place); definitely not appropriate in the present form. – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR not about felines. Also, not pointing to Category:Wines -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Project[edit]

This is the only WikiProject cross-namespace shortcut with the format "X Project" or "X project". Everything I said below about Ukraine Wikiproject stands, but here the greater concern is that it's a surprising redirect. "Porn Project" refers to a number of things, most notably a Christian anti-pornography group. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bad cross-namespace redirect likely to pollute autocomplete/search results. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR many such real-world projects have no relation to non-encyclopedic internal Wikipedia material -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Wikiproject[edit]

This is the only WikiProject cross-namespace shortcut of the format "X Wikiproject" or "X WikiProject". As that link shows, XNRs to WikiProjects are quite rare to begin with. Any "Wikiproject:" or "WikiProject:" pseudonamespace has been conclusively ruled out by past RfDs (see documentation here), and I think "X Wikiproject" or "X WikiProject" should be treated the same, as the alternative would be opening the door to thousands of such XNRs. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Poor cross-namespace redirect likely to pollute autocomplete/search results. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The mainspace and the rest of WP should be kept separated as much as possible. Veverve (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teleaid[edit]

Created as a redirect to Maybach (a subsidiary of Mercedes-Benz) then retargeted a few months later on the basis that "The system is available in all Mercedes-Benzes, why should it redirect to Maybach". Not mentioned at either article and I don't think any is justified. There are mentions at Car phone and a few Mercedes models such as Mercedes-Benz W140 (note that this one includes it as the redlink TELEAID). Looking online it is possible that this topic is notable but in any case with no suitable target I think delete. A7V2 (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to helpline, many helplines (hotlines) are described as tel-aid, tele-aid, tel-aide, tele-aide, etc -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q Wiki Club[edit]

This XNR related to a GLAM program may have served some benefit when it was created, but isn't of any use now that the club is (apparently) no more. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for alerting on this - most Project class items related to the Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in states of Australia - even where they may currently apparently no longer utilised have been kept (where possible) in archived form where possible - as a record of the activities held by the project(s) - so utilitarian concerns to date have been sublimated (so to speak) by the need to complement any metrics required by outside bodies as to the ups and downs and sideways of the projects and events. Where possible we keep the most trivial 'paper trails' for good purpose - that said and the commendable offering of a page view in the nomination (more power to the process of checking such items!) maybe in the end we dont need it - but as I am on the other side of this hot/wet continent - the more relevant editor might just be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kerry_Raymond... JarrahTree 04:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic WP:XNR . If this was encyclopedically notable, it'd have an encyclopedic article. Otherwise, it should be using WP:Q Wiki Club -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Correa[edit]

A section in a poorly-maintained, poorly-formatted projectspace page quoting some (unsourced!) mean things this person said about Wikipedia is not a good usage of a cross-namespace redirect, and in fact poses serious BLP concerns. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I have no opinion, either for or against this deletion. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ASPERSIONS[edit]

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

Canned edit summary[edit]

This XNR's creator left the summary Not likely to be searched by readers, which I'll recycle as its RfD rationale. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not likely to be searched by readers. I'd think it fairly likely to be searched by new editors though. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR to nonencyclopedic content, that is not using a pseudo namespace prefix. Edit summary exists and targets a topic in the encyclopedia, while this does not. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect to a humor page. Its appearance in the search bar, Special:AllPages, etc., as a mainspace page is actively misleading, as it implies that this is a thing that happened, or might have happened, or at least an encyclopedically notable hoax. N.B.: This page has been deleted five times before, but never by a consensus discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no problems with deletion here. Graham87 14:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

André Konsbruck[edit]

Not mentioned at target, doesn't appear he ever was mentioned there, and is currently not mentioned anywhere else, nor do I feel any mention is justified anywhere. This is a former article that was BLARed by David Gerard after removing some problematic sources. Looking at the last version of this [20] before the BLAR I don't think we should be restoring a BLP to a state where the only two "sources" are just photos. I definitely think delete. A7V2 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I concur - a redirect or article can be created as and when there's material - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audi Q6[edit]

Appears to be a perpetually "announced" model. Of course there is no mention at the target. Created in 2011, though there are sources saying this car will be made in 2018 [21] and now more recent ones like [22]. Delete unless mention can be added somewhere, possibly at Audi e-tron (2018) since I think that may be the model that the first article I've mentioned is referring to (indeed it is reference number 7 from that article). A7V2 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Sucker[edit]

Unclear/vague redirect. Brainsuckers are enemies in Bloodborne for example. Should be deleted to allow the use of the search function. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambig draft will help to see if there is support for disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there's also the brain bug from Starship Troopers, with the meme "They sucked his brains out" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No good target and we shouldn't really be creating dabs when none of the entries are pages that have this as an alternate title. Letting the search results take over is the best option. Mlb96 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dabs disambiguate not ambiguous article titles, but ambiguous names for topics (see MOS:DABMENTION). – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak disambiguate. There's adequate material for a disambiguation page (notwithstanding a gray zone), though deletion will also probably be acceptable as all the entities appear to be obscure and the search engine seems to handle navigation to them well enough. – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Is Not Yet Dead[edit]

This page was tagged as an implausible redirect and it is the translated title of a national anthem. I thought the editors at WP:RFD would be the best judges of whether it was indeed implausible. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • While the target article translates the title as "The glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet perished", "Ukraine has not yet perished" for short, this translation does see some currency, and the title-case capitalization is reasonable enough given that it's the title of a work. Thus, keep, and I'd say create those two redlinks as well as appropriate title-/sentence-case variants of all three. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • i tagged it... it is not accurate translation of the current title simply a misnomer. further the enter first page of google hits are from the last week indicating possible cito-genesis in the top hits—blindlynx 05:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Much of) the first page of Google hits is from the past few weeks because the whole world developed a great interest in Ukrainian politics and culture in the past few weeks. (I wonder why.) This isn't citogenesis, though. See this from October 2020, for instance. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean in general but specifically in terms of renewed interest and it having been the title of a wiki article for the better part of a day. In general it's just a miss-translation, and i don't think it qualifies as a common miss-translation outside of people seeing it on here in the last week—blindlynx 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common enough that a major academic institution used it for the name of a conference. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A quick Google (web and book) search reveal that the title is in common usage. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a logical redirect and that translation is found regularly in English text long before the recent war. (A Google Scholar search turns up two pages of results, including an instance from 1936.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S/b/:Ralston Bowles[edit]

Another weird "s/b/:" one (see Special:Permalink/1076220363#s/b/:). If created today, this would be an A10. Jamie7687, in redirecting it, said this redirect should probably be deleted. Well, 16 years later, let's make that happen. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S/b/:Hydropolis[edit]

This is the result of a pagemove from a nonsensical title four minutes after the page was created in 2005. Sixteen years later, I do not think it serves any purpose. It gets some pageviews, but not enough to give cause to believe that any humans are deliberately navigating to this redirect. Given the existence of S/b/:Ralston Bowles as well, I asked Graham87 if he was aware of any old MediaWiki things that could explain how these two pages were created, and he was as stumped as me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC) c/e 14:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Graham87 14:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was the old name and after I moved the page, I kept it as a redirect as usual. It didn't serve a purpose other than the history but I agree to deleting it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JCK (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moot: target has been restored as a dab page. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 9[edit]

One Minute Closer to Death[edit]

No assistance to navigation. Probably a rumoured title before release. Failed to find any reference to this title at target, nor at any other page. If there is a better target I have missed, I would remain in favour of retargetting. Richhoncho (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak redirect to Ranking Roger, maybe? QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not retarget to the above suggestion. In the absence of a plausible target, the best solution is to delete this. We don't want to confuse readers who may end up in an article where there's no mention whatsoever of the title in question. CycloneYoris talk! 20:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yard Ball[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiffle®ball[edit]

The difficulty/unlikeliness of typing the registered trademark symbol, the lack of a space, and the fact that the concept predates the trademark make these redirects unlikely, unhelpful, and possibly misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The logo on the official website does show the ® symbol after "Wiffle" but not especailly prominently. On first use on other pages the symbol is inlcuded - e.g. the welcome page begins "Dear WIFFLE® Enthusiast:". However usage on the news page includes "[T]he WIFFLE ® Ball was inducted into the National Toy Hall of Fame." with that spacing. Putting all this together I don't think that the unspaced registered trade mark symbol is a likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the unspaced registered trademark was was used more often in promotional material it’s highly unlikely that the average person who type that trying to search for it.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mossy Land[edit]

Besides the fact that this redirect uses proper case when its current target is not a proper-cased subject, this redirect does not seem to be an alternative name for the target, leaving the connection to possibly seem WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because peat is just mossy land, not everyone knows the actual name of it and could be useful Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDELETE item 10: This redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article based on content published in Rees's Cyclopædia under the heading of Mossy Land. The target article contains no information on the subject of Mossy Land. Paleorthid (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal criminal[edit]

Irrelevant target article; "Minimal counterexample" is a mathematical concept, while the title of the redirect is "Minimal criminal" which itself doesn't make any sense. Should be listed for retargeting —CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Kaiaphas#Minimal Criminal as it seems that is a name that he has used and Googling for it shows more hits for him than for anything else, on the first page at least. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect is linked from Well-ordering principle, another mathematical article, which is pending references from 2008. I have added another citations needed for the criminal part. Jay (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote for the Kaiaphas project. Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins, "What is Mathematics?" 2nd ed., 1996, ISBN 9780195105193, page 495: "Since there is no point in making bad maps bigger, we go the opposite way and look at the smallest bad maps, colloquially known as minimal criminals."
The term seems to have arisen in the context of the four color theorem. Paradoctor (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jodhi Bibi[edit]

I request for deletion of the redirect Jodhi Bibi as Mariam-uz-Zamani is not referred to as Jodhi Bibi in any books, articles, television shows, websites, discussion,etc. Jodhi Bibi is used rarely for her daughter-in-law, Jagat Gosain but since its barely even used, I think it's okay to not redirect to her either. Also no articles link to Jodhi Bibi and is a rarely visited page, so it removal possibly would not cause any problems.
Manavati (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jagat Gosain, as nominator suggests that it is a valid nickname for this individual. —Ost (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Functional dissonance[edit]

Not mentioned at target (the word "functional" does not even appear there at all). 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Hucbald.SaintAmand, REDYES. Veverve (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need consensus for Functional dissonance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While it may be ideal to have a separate article, it would seem the redirect for "Functional dissonance" makes sense in the interim. It seems to me that functional and non-functional dissonance could be covered in an article about dissonance.Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While eventually we should have articles about both, the redirects are reasonable as they are pointing to the most closely related content we have right now. The redirects can be switched into articles whenever someone feels competent enough to write them. One of the uses of redirects is to decouple building infrastructure from (re-)organizing contents, and it is good to have them so that continuing to build infrastructure isn't hindered by content work laying somewhat behind. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival[edit]

Delete. Missleading in templates such as Template:Events at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival. Should be deleted to provoke page creation. CLalgo (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - valid redirect, and to preserve page history. Onel5969 TT me 14:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral On one hand, there shouldn't be an article about this, per WP:NOTDATABASE (and due to the fact that no other content seems to exist about this). On the other, even if properly targeted, this is an unlikely search term (giving this is a rather unlikely topic as well), and there is no content about this (other than a line in the sports-by-sports medal table) at the target article (which is itself not much better than a database entry). Removing the redirect would not remove any functionality or valuable content (previous versions of this redirect are entirely unsourced); though at the same time keeping it is a redirect to discourage article creation is also a valid concern. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Nothing in the completely unsourced history that would help with that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to the article per WP:BLAR. The objection to the previous article content was one editor disputing notability, the redirect has been objected to with an assertion that it is notable. The place to determine the answer to questions of notability of articles is AfD not RfD. The article was partially sourced, not completely unsourced so the assertion that there is nothing that would help writing a sourced article is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and AfD per Thryduulf. I don't feel that it is appropriate as a redirect however since there is next to no information at the target (so second preference delete I suppose). A7V2 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the article as there are others like it.Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Party[edit]

Appears to have originally been an article retargeted to Conservatism in the United Kingdom but changed to the current target without discussion. Theresa May popularised the phrase, but it isn't really in relation to her. Suggest Restore per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasty Party or retarget to somewhere more appropriate as WP:RNEUTRAL. Bonoahx (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete entirely. The original redirect doesn't mention the phrase "Nasty Party" at all (and such a redirect seems borderline PoV/disruptive). The Theresa May reference at least mentions the phrase, but I don't see it being notable enough for this redirect ot exist. — Czello 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, or restore: It certainly is a known and probably notable expression enough and probably ought to be included in Conservatism in the United Kingdom—it is used routinely in discussions around British politics to describe the shifts in positioning of the UK's political parties (i.e. following shifts in public attitudes and Howard's failure in the 2005 General Election, the Conservative Party moving away from social conservatism and towards the social liberalism of the David Cameron/George Osborne years). Examples of it being used: Guardian 2002, Independent 2021, BBC 2002, BBC 2008, BBC 2021, BBC 2021 again LabourList 2016. The neutrality argument here seems weak—the phrase is associated with Theresa May. The redirect does not say to the reader "Theresa May is a nasty party" nor "Theresa May is a member of a nasty party". If you read it like that, the neutrality argument would also apply if to any other redirect target (e.g. the Conservative Party or 'Conservatism in the UK'). Redirecting any political slogan or expression could have an obtuse interpretation, but we should assume a sensible reader who can grasp a modicum of nuance. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a little bit of content at Compassionate conservatism#United Kingdom. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A plausible search term that's discussed in sufficient depth at the target article, which is about the person who introduced the term into mainstream political discourse. WP:RNEUTRAL, which the nominator cites, explicitly contradicts their argument. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not make my rationale particularly clear - my thought process was that it could be redirected to Conservatism in the United Kingdom or Conservative Party (UK) as a non-neutral representation of the Tory party. The keep arguments are a good rebuttal to that but just thought I'd try to make myself clear. Bonoahx (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term and May is definitely associated with the phrase. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Finance[edit]

I'm really not sure what the proper process is for converting a redirect to a dismabiguation page so forgive me if I'm in the wrong place here. Currently, Department of Finance redirects to finance minister. I believe however that this page would serve much better as a disambiguation page for a considerable number of Departments of Finance throughout the world. See here for search results. Calistemon (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish nationalism[edit]

Disambiguate Northern Irish nationalism between Irish and Ulster nationalisms, the term is clearly ambiguous. And retarget Nationalist (Northern Ireland) to this disambiguation page. Olchug (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CoBain[edit]

Implausible capitalization in the middle of the name. Created in 2008 and not relevant camel case titles. By a user who created redirects with various possible misspelling and capitalization combinations. Suggest deletion. Jay (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar RfDs related to the user's capitalizations: RfD for Paul WolFowitz and Paul WolfoWitz, RfD for HoWard Taft and Howard TaFt, RfD for HoWard TaFt. Jay (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda weak keep CoBain, which for some reason keeps getting a decent stream of pageviews such as 146 last year, and delete ToBy, that one hasn't Been getting a lot of use nowadays. Regards, SONIC678 06:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 146 per year is a statistical irrelevance, ~1 every other day or two. Probably a weird fan site or a mirror, or linkfarm. They'll cope. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CoBain per Sonic678 - the 150-200 hits per year it consistently gets is a very large number for a redirect, statistical noise amounts to a low single digit number per year. I've got no idea where those views are coming from, but that doesn't matter - making it harder for the people to access the content they are looking for harms the encyclopaedia without bringing any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete ToBy. The 15-20 hits it gets per year are borderline relevant, but there is no obvious connection to the capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul WolFowitz[edit]

Implausible capitalization in the middle of the name. Created in 2008 and not relevant camel case titles. By a user who created redirects with various possible misspelling and capitalization combinations. Suggest deletion. Jay (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar RfDs related to the user's capitalizations: RfD for HoWard Taft and Howard TaFt, RfD for HoWard TaFt. Jay (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. These don't seem to be receiving much traFFic in the Way of pageviews, apart From a Few mostly relatively small spikes here and there. Regards, SONIC678 06:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeLete both per nom and Sonic678, implausible typo. Bonoahx (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Puttin[edit]

The target is not known by this name. This looks to be a parody twitter handle with a handful of tweets in January 2018, and not mentioned at the target. Suggest deletion. Jay (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no reliable sources use this term (all I can see are Twitter handles, Reddit posts, and comments on other forums), and it is not a plausible typo. Bonoahx (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HoWard Taft[edit]

Delete these implausible ones for the same reasons as the nom. WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#HoWard TaFt 2 below; created by the same blocked user. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need consensus for HoWard Taft which is probably linked externally.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep HoWard Taft and delete Howard TaFt per Hog Farm. Deleting the Former might inconvenience a lot of readers (it's still being linked, possibly From external links as Well), but not so much With the latter, Which only got a Whopping 7 pagevieWs compared to the Former's 453. Regards, SONIC678 06:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. MB 14:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jschlatt[edit]

Delete per REDYES. This could be its own article. There's currently a draft about it, but even if it gets rejected, I think this redirect should still be deleted. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 04:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: That really doesn't make any sense. If the draft gets accepted, then the redirect will be moved or something to make way for it. If it is rejected for notability concerns, then why should we have a red link when it's unlikely for an article to get created in the first place? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not per nom. As the draft says, he is more known for Minecraft. Dream SMP mentions him in reference to L'Manberg. It is not fair to redirect the topic to One True King only. Jay (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: Do you mean to !vote retarget then? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to Dream SMP per Jay's response. L33tm4n (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant delete. It is not fair to either topic. Jay (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connection Tour 07[edit]

Nowhere mentioned in article, and creator of redirect is a confirmed sockpuppet. QuickQuokka [talk] 16:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/2012 proposed revision[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @UnitedStatesian per speedy deletion criterion G8 as a talk page for a non-existent page. Courtesy ping for @Liz. FASTILY 00:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @UnitedStatesian per speedy deletion criterion G8 as a talk page for a non-existent page. Courtesy ping for @Liz. FASTILY 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cross-namespace redirect to a user talk page, zero substantial page history. -FASTILY 00:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason to have this cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep G8 is not applicable: This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular: * Pages that should be moved to a different location First, I moved the "non-existent" page from "List of Negro league baseball players" to "Lists of Negro league baseball players" (plural) but I missed the subpages; that means this redirect should be moved to a different location excluding it from G8. Second, this redirects to a page I userfied to preserve its history as it was part of a contentious XfD several years ago, the redirect is linked to in several WP & talk archives so deletion would break the links, so therefore the redirect is useful to Wikipedia and again excluded from G8.
Regarding Cross-namespace. This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace.... "Mainspace" is defined as The main namespace is the default namespace and does not use a prefix in article page names. ... The main namespace does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as: * the talk namespaces for discussing what the content of articles in mainspace should be. Since this was in the "talk" space, it is excluded from "cross-namespace redirect" criteria as it specifically is for "main namespace."
And finally, this redirect was attempted to be deleted last week by UnitedStatesian when they moved the target of the redirect from my user-talkspace to my userspace here, causing the redirect to show on AnomieBot's broken redirect list, causing it to be deleted by Liz. This is a direct violation of UnitedStatesian's page mover permission which only allows for the redirect to be deleted if Moving pages within a requester's own userspace to another location if a desire for deletion is expressed. No such request was made, and if a pattern of such misuse is shown, it is grounds for removal. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any irreparable issues I caused, that was not my intent. But it would be helpful to know why the subpage targeted by both redirects is in the User talk: namespace, and not in the User: namespace. Can you enlighten us? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are sandboxes required to be in "User" space as opposed to "User talk" space? And, why is it of such an interest to you to move it after so many years? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't want to answer my reasonable question, so why should I answer your questions? And you seem angry with me for some reason, I am not sure why. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on you to show where sandboxes should be in user space, which you have not done. Until you can do that, your questions, and actions, are baseless. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I base it on WP:OWNTALK, which says "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier." Of over 3,000 pages that transclude {{draft article}}, congrats, yours is the only non-trivial transclusion in the User talk: space: pretty strong evidence that draft articles are not supposed to be there. You could have also saved all these spilled pixels by tagging both redirects with {{G8-exempt}}, along with any others you find useful for some reason. Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OWNTALK, nor any other page, disallows sandboxes to be kept in user talk. Why are you focused on only one of my sandboxes, after so many years? I have several, yet this is the ONLY one you target. Stop moving users' sandboxes. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to make clear, this was the only one in the User talk: space tagged with {{draft article}}. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented out said template. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did delete this page when it showed up as a broken redirect and because I thought it was a cross-namespace redirect. It seems like this dispute hinges on whether cross-namespace redirects refers ONLY to article space or if it can it apply to other spaces as well.
An essay, Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects is delightfully vague and states that this is a "controversial" issue and presents arguments both for and against deletion of cross-namespace redirects. But it does specify MAIN space so it is questionable whether the Talk space is included in "main space" or whether Talk is a separate namespace entirely that is not covered by the cross-namespace guidance. The only conclusion I can come to is, unlike my opinion before discussing the matter with Bison X, the answer isn't as black and white as I originally thought and that this particular instance will be a judgment call on the part of the closer. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Internatioanl Film Festival "Molodist"[edit]

Redirect for an unlikely misspelling Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per K4; this is an {{R from move}}, which was the article title for a few months. Those few months were enough to see this redirect garner some views from old links, and we are better served not breaking them. It isn't like this redirect is causing any signficant harm. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947, and because redirects are cheap, and there's nothing wrong with keeping some typo redirects around. Fieari (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was the one who unthinkingly mentioned the possibility of RFD in an edit summary while adding {{R from misspelling}}. It was not a serious request for nor attempt at an RFD nomination, and I should have considered the implications more carefully. I am neutral to the nomination as it currently stands. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z (hate symbol)[edit]

The Russian "Z" does not appear to be regularly described in reliable sources as a hate symbol – a more appropriate target would probably be Wolfsangel per USA Today. Maybe I missed something, since it's a tad difficult to search for a single letter in this manner, but I would suggest it's too soon to be classifying the Russian "Z" as a hate symbol, given the reliable sources aren't there. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Redirects don't require reliable sources, they just have to be an unambiguous alternate title or search term. That said, you may be right that Wolfsangel is a better target, except that the Russian Z is a current hot news topic and people may be struggling to figure out how to describe it in their searches for it... and this does seem to be a plausible way they might search for it, given that some people (not reliable sources, just some people) online are describing it as a hate symbol. I almost want to create a disambiguation page for various uses of Z-like symbols as group identifiers, but that might be too broad. But regardless... searching for information on this thing is difficult, because it's so generic! It's just a letter of the alphabet! Fieari (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 8[edit]

Pleiodon[edit]

Pleiodon is a valid genus of mollusc and should not redirect to a genus of grass that was briefly known under this preoccupied name, an article for the mollusc does not yet exist, but can be created easily Armin Reindl (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig - until a stub is created for the mollusc, the page should be a disambiguation page. When the mollusc page is created, there can be a hatnote. Also, the name was not preoccupied if it was only used for an animal previously, as that would be a separate nomenclature system. There are tons of examples of genera of plants and animals with the same name, we shouldn’t treat this instance any differently. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • dabify per awkwafaba -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as suggested; this is a common occurrence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for now, as suggested by awkwafaba, who also describes prospective development correctly. William Avery (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Llywelyn[edit]

Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd was the elder of two brothers called Llywelyn, but the only instances of these two terms (both of which have previously been titles of this article) seem to be in running text where a sentence needs to specify which of two Llywelyns is being referred to, e.g. here for "elder Llywelyn" and here for "Llywelyn the elder". The first example refers to these brothers, but the second refers to Llywelyn the Great and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, so the redirect target is not the only possible "elder Llywelyn". (In fact, the first page of Google Books results for "elder Llywelyn" is mostly made up of references to Llywelyn the Great, not Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd.) Ham II (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig per nom. Multiple sources use these terms to describe people so they are plausible search terms, that they are used for multiple people means we need to disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: That was actually meant to be an argument for deleting the redirects; sorry for not being clear. Llywelyn (disambiguation) doesn't cover any of the aforementioned people (rather counterintuitively) so the closest thing would be Llywelyn § Personal names: historical. That currently mentions Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd but not his younger brother. Llywelyn the Great and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd do appear there, and I suppose the order of seniority is clear because their dates are given, but it's not as if either of these terms is used as a proper name. Ham II (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you intended deletion, but your argument makes it clear that these names should be disambiguated somewhere. Whether that is Llywelyn (disambiguation) or a specific one at either of the titles nominated is less important, but if there is a good reason why they aren't covered at the existing page then it would seem best to create a new one. Disambiguation guarantees that people can find who they are looking for by giving appropriate context, search results (which may be several clicks/taps away depending on device, search method and account type) by contrast are not guaranteed and even if the relevant articles do appear there is no guarantee that the provided context will enable readers to reliably pick the correct article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think someone's going to read "Llywelyn ap Iorwerth had been a much more mighty ruler than his grandson. But yet he had never obtained, had hardly ever aspired to, so formal a position in the feudal hierarchy. The elder Llywelyn had generally been content to style himself 'Prince of North Wales.'" (a string of text which appears in a lot of the Google Books results) and fail to realise that the "elder Llywelyn" is the person referred to earlier as Llywelyn ap Iorwerth. It's only in contexts like this that these phrases are used. Ham II (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added 'Elder Llywelyn' which was changed to 'Llywelyn the Elder', but both redirects are unnecessary as Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd would be the correct naming for the article. There is confusion as to who is who here, Llywelyn Fawr existed in the history books, and the name has since been adopted by 'Llywelyn the Great' as the literal translation, however 'Llywelyn Gwych' would be 'great' in a literal sense of the word. But to reiterate, both Elder Llywelyn & Llywelyn the elder article searches which are now redirect pages, they should both be deleted. Also, the original naming of the article Llywelyn the Elder ap Maredudd ap Cynan ab Owain Gwynedd is unnecessarily long and the original article name which was the cause the redirects, that too should be deleted as it is a confusing name which blends both English and Welsh incorrectly, Llywelyn's name was Llywelyn Fawr (the elder is an English translation). Again, I would like to bring up the case of Llywelyn the Great using Llywelyn Fawr's name incorrectly as that should be amended too, they are 2 different people who's names have been lost in translation over centuries and that should be stated through the redirect search engine, instead of having Llywelyn the Great borrowing 'Fawr' in his article search, the name should be redirected to Llywelyn Fawr who with referenced searches held the naming in the 13th century. Please see Talk:Llywelyn the Great#Llywelyn 'Fawr'? for sourced information regarding the argument. Cltjames (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cltjames: If you really want to resolve the issue of the Llywelyn Fawr redirect (and I think its current target is correct), I'd guess that the best thing to do would be to start a formal RfC at Talk:Llywelyn the Great – a step up from your existing talk page section there. If you do, please ping me in as I might not be watching. I'd continue to argue that Llywelyn ab Iorwerth/Llywelyn Fawr/Llywelyn the Great (all the same person) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ham II (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Harris (supercentenarian)[edit]

Harris is no longer mentioned at this list of American supercentenarians. It looks like this was originally an article, but was merged into the list article. But since he is no longer in the top 100 longest living supercentenarians, he has been removed. It seems unhelpful to have a redirect to a page that does not contain this person (either in prose or in the table). Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris closed as "merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States" in 2015, with a comment that there was a "pretty strong consensus that this should not exist as a standalone article". Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget if mentioned somewhere, otherwise delete. I would have suggested mentioning them at Rock Island, Illinois#Notable people and retargetting there - it's clear from the references on the former article that he was notable person in the community, but that section determines notability solely on the basis of having a Wikipedia article. The article states he was "a native of Ayrshire, Indiana", I wouldn't object to redirecting to a sourced sentence there, but given how short that article is I'm unsure how DUE that mention would be? Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

∾[edit]

Another Wiktionary redirect from Neel.arunabh that targets an empty Wiktionary page. The current target here is completely inadequate containing only the unicode character name and a message that someone needs to add a definition. Unless a proper definition is added this should be retargeted to something local or deleted 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that Neel.arunabh has added the useless definition (mathematics) inverted lazy s, which is identical to the description. That helps no one and does not change my position that the redirect should be deleted unless a local target is identified. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wiktionary is currently the best target. 2607:FB91:132B:A8B6:F0A7:BB28:4E79:3A4 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 21:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fairytale Love[edit]

Possibly a working title, not mentioned on the target or related articles. Suggest delete unless there is a better target in which this would be useful. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster people[edit]

More commonly used to refer to Ulster Scots people. Retarget to Ulster Scots people. Disambiguate per Paradoctor, see below. Olchug (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose This is astonishingly ill-informed. Ulster Scots are only one grouping within the people of Ulster and are a minority thereof. (That said, the current redirect is questionable as Northern Ireland is only part of Ulster). Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that all the people of Ulster are Ulster Scots. I just stated that the term 'Ulster people' usually means Ulster Scots people. Naturally, the term can also mean simply a resident of Ulster.--Olchug (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely doesn't mean that, ever, let alone "usually". Your multi-article campaign of the last two hours is becoming a menace. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please study this. And count when 'Ulster people' means Ulster Scots people and when it means just resident of Ulster. Olchug (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing supportive that I can see. It's up to you to do the work as you're advancing the proposition. Cite quotes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for example The Ulster People: Ancient, Medieval and Modern, Ban-gor. 10 Lunney, L., 1994,“Ulster attitudes of Scottishness: The eighteenth century and after” Olchug (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check this source. There 'Ulster People' means 'Ulster Scots people'. Olchug (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the latter a quotation from the (fringe) source or your interpretation of it ? Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Google searches show that the most common usage is to mean "people who live in or are from Ulster" (where "Ulster" refers to the 6 counties of Northern Ireland most often but can refer to the wider 9 county area). This is perhaps most clearly articulated in this 2015 article in The Times In the most general terms, Ulster people claiming an Irish identity tend to be Roman Catholic. [...] In equally broad terms, many Ulster-Scots folk are Protestant, chiefly Presbyterian [...]. A minority use refers to people from Ulster County, New York; the use of "Ulster people" as synonymous to "Ulster Scots people" seems to be largely confined to the single work cited by the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Ulster people" is wider than just "Ulster Scots people". The region was never depopulated and filled again with people from Scots origin. The Banner talk 20:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate The term is clearly ambiguous between people from Ulster, people from Northern Ireland, people from Ulster County, and the Scots subset, so I created Ulster people (disambiguation). The only question left is if there is a primary topic. Unless sourced, citable evidence is provided that there is, the disambiguation page should inhabit Ulster people. Counting random search engine results won't do. Paradoctor (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Including Ulster Scots at your dab page is like saying Italian Americans=Americans. I've removed it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
like saying Italian Americans=Americans No, it is not. That is exactly not what disambiguation pages are for. They list possible meanings, even mistaken uses. As the discussion above has shown, this is the case here.
If the terms were equivalent, then I wold have !voted to do as Olchug asked. Paradoctor (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are for listing the mistaken use of one Wikipedia editor and a solitary work they claim to support them (though no supporting quotation has been provided)? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum. This is not about the redirect under discussion here. It's about the dab page, and we're already have a discussion there. Take it there, please. Paradoctor (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're allowed to raise your preferred solution of the dab here but you hide my response, to this very thing you raised, as off-topic, whilst retaining your own comment which prompted it? That's outrageous. And as you well know, I have "(taken) it there". Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
raise your preferred solution of the dab here I did no such thing. You raised the question here: Including Ulster Scots at your dab page. I should've pointed to the dab talk right then. So I was one reply slow. Does not change the fact: This issue is entirely unrelated to the purpose of this page, and does not belong here.
I have "(taken) it there" And I did not complain about that, did I? Here is not there. Paradoctor (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: If a discussion goes off topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using {{Collapse top}}/{{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates. Paradoctor (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By stating "Disambiguate" you are doing no such thing as proposing (and enacting) disambiguation? If it's off-topic, blank the lot, not just the responses to it. My point about your directive for me to "take it there" was the redundancy of ordering me to do something I'd evidently done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really not get that "does X need disambiguation" and "is Y a possible meaning of X" are different questions?
The topic of the redirect is ambiguous, that has been established.
Any question about the specifics of what to include belong at the disambiguation talk, not here. Paradoctor (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but potentially a compromise could be adding a hatnote to Ulster Scots people within Ulster people - perhaps a different discussion to be had. Bonoahx (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, within People of Northern Ireland. I see that there is already a hatnote redirecting to a dab page now per Paradoctor which I think would also be fine. Bonoahx (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:SOAP[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Draft:Aplusk[edit]

Delete Only edit is the creation by now-blocked user, and of course not mentioned in the target. Should be a prohibition on de novo creation of redirects in the draftspace, like this one was. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ashton Kutcher's twitter handle, would have made sense if it was not in draftspace. Delete as an improper draft redirect. Jay (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Draft:Aplusk" is not remotely likely as a search term, not encyclopedic in any way. Paradoctor (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western leftism[edit]

I'm not sure the target page can be considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or that it's a neutral destination. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the target notes this redirect in a hatnote and suggests readers might be interesting in the general left-wing politics article. Google results show the current target to be the single most common thing referred to, but nowhere near primary topic over various different leftist groups/people/ideologies/parties in the cultural West with exact meaning depending heavily on context. I need to think more about this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as {{r from hypernym}}. "Western leftism" is an extremely vague concept whose meaning is the combination of the literal meanings of its parts. It is not an idiom, whereas "baizuo" is: Western leftism (Chinese political jargon). Unless we can we can identify other idioms attaching to the phrase, this is the way. Paradoctor (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sope Willams- Elegbe[edit]

Name of redirect is not viable with the space but page contains some historic content and actually pre-dates existing article page. The redirect Sope Willams-Elegbe already exists with content. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sope Willams- Elegbe started as a draft Nov 12, 2020 and Sope Willams Elegbe started as an article on Feb 22, 2021, both from the same editor Zend2020. The article may have been a copy of the draft, although the article creator did not mention the source. If there is nothing additional at the redirect's content to merge to the target, we can delete it since the nom has attributed User:Pallet182 (the only other editor till Feb 22, 2021) at the target's talk. Or is there a standard format for attribution at the talk page?
If there is no support for delete but the typo at the redirect title is a concern, we can move it to Sope Willams-Elegbe, but we need to delete that redirect first, and that is another content fork mess. Jay (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass formation[edit]

Used in a wide variety of contexts in academic literature, from fluid dynamics to microbiology to applied medicine. Not well-described anywhere on Wikipedia, although "Mass formation psychosis" is discussed in some detail at Robert_W._Malone#COVID-19. Given the circumstances, I think that deletion to allow for search results is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a number of substantive examples of "mass formation" being used in other fields as a standalone phrase (i.e., not as "XXX mass formation", which is usually to be parsed as "[XXX mass] formation" not as "XXX [mass formation]" and therefore irrelevant)? Google hits at the moment reveal overwhelming support for this being used in the context of "mass formation psychosis" (correctly parsed as "[mass formation] psychosis"), which is a term apparently invented by Mattias Desmet (not Robert Malone) based on the real term "mass formation" used by Freud in this book. There's no question that--regardless of its veracity--"mass formation" is a significant concept in public discourse at the moment and that this book is its origin... Bueller 007 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most common result after discarding "[XXX mass] formation"-form results is for mass formation in medical contexts: [24], [25], [26]. These are just a small sample, I scrolled through 6 pages of GScholar results for "mass formation" -water (as "water mass formation" is the most common result for the [XXX mass] form) and found no results about psychology, group or otherwise. Can you provide any scholarly examples where "mass formation" is invoked without the phrase "psychosis" to refer to the social psychology usage? signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current association with COVID misinformation, any change to an article (or disambig) should probably be workshopped in draft space first. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the expression can refer to numerous phenomenons as pointed out in the nom. Furthermore, it can also refer to the biological phenomenon of how a mass of fat is formed, or to the geological phenomenon of how a mass of rock or sand is formed. Veverve (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Thesmp (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify. If there are a bunch of expressions that this term refers to, then making a useful disambiguation page seems better than just deleting it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting comment @Mhawk10: What would a disambiguation look like? Do you have examples of articles that "mass formation" may refer to? -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/make a proper article about the phenomenon who tells it exists, who tells it is a hoax. Also a redirect page if the term is also used in other fields. Desmet (the professor who translated the term from massavorming (Dutch) and Massenbildung (German) and connected it to covid has published his Dutch book. The book is just out and already sold out 2x, in reprint now. In the Summer the English edition occurs. He refers in the book to Elias Canetti, Gustave le Bon, Hannah Arendt as the fundament for the descriptions of what 'mass formation' (Freuds Massenbildung in German) is. The experts mentioned by Reuters (and copied by many msm-channels) can be put under a paragraph 'Criticism about the existence of the term'. Or put in the introduction as a source that the term is speculative. Denying the Belgium professor and head of the clinical psychology department doesn't really solve the case. In fact, the paradox here is even, that Reuters and the cited experts are under a spell of mass formation even, according to Desmet (now it gets weird, but you have to read the book to understand that jump). https://www.amazon.co.uk/psychologie-van-totalitarisme-Mattias-Desmet/dp/946401539X/ref=sr_1_4?qid=1646307290&refinements=p_27%3AMattias+Desmet&s=books&sr=1-4

Or include the term in Crowd psychology or Group dynamics with a good description. Everybody knows sheep form a mass formation when they get scared. One guy on the dancefloor triggers the other people to join, etc.. It is weird that this is denied. Mass formation is not mass psychosis, it exists and we all know that. Le Bon is mentioned as the first source in the article group dynamics. Desmet refers to him as the one who described the phenomenon as well.

In addition this graphic novel explains very well how the term massavorming/mass formation popped up actually in Belgium and the Netherlands. It describes the recent history of Desmets media appearance and how it is connected to Ad Verbrugge (professor philosophy at Leiden University and prominent Dutch thinker with 10 books): https://medium.com/@yurilandman/dissident-in-20-21-yuri-landman-aa3b8c7e9585 Note: of course that graphic novel is not a RS about the term itsself, but it gives good info about the historic background what actually happened with Desmet and the media, and it can be a source for that. Reuters is not a RS for that history. 2A02:A443:5030:1:140:6FB2:699E:BDF3 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 7[edit]

Russia Sanctions[edit]

It is unclear whether the titles of the first three refer to sanctions by Russia, or sanctions on Russia. Additionally, it is unclear to which round of sanctions is being referred. Possible results include choosing one as the primary topic (I'd say there's a good case to be made for International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, but that may be considered recentism), retargeting them bar the last to Economic sanctions#Russian sanctions or Russia sanctions against Ukraine, or deleting them to encourage a creation à la United States sanctions or Sanctions against North Korea. Given that there are differing interpretations, I thought it would be best to bring it to RfD for harmonisation. "Sanctions on Russia" doesn't suffer from the two-fold ambiguity of the rest, but I have bundled it together due to the one of the layers of ambiguity being identical. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. I've added another four redirects for which the same considerations as "Sanctions on Russia" apply and so should be discussed with the others. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted by a dab (or more likely set index) here, listing the various sanctions that have been applied by and against Russia/the Soviet Union over the years, including both present targets. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify/disambiguate per nom's list of articles -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify to the articles found by nominator. --Lenticel (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dab the first five pages to "Sanctions involving Russia". However, I think US sanctions against Russia should be retargeted to Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, otherwise there would be 30+ redirects to International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, each being the country imposing sanctions against Russia. lol1VNIO (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABIfy all, as all those expressions are too vague. Veverve (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate and separate the articles — Reason is, that Russia and/or people in Russia have had sanctions levied against them before the 2022 expansion of the Russo-Ukrianian War, which began in 2014. The lists of sanctions are very long already, so they should chronologically be separated to those levied after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, the incursion into, and takeover of parts of Donbass and Luhansk provinces, and the sanctions levied after 24. February 2022. There may also be lists of sanctions that predate the Russo-Ukrainian War, including the various Magnitsky Acts in several countries. -Mardus /talk 21:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Tangan[edit]

Delete. This word is not mentioned at the target, wikt:tangan tells me it does mean "hand" in many languages, including Malay and Indonesian, but it also a romansiation of two different Japanese words (meaning "entreaty, petition, to implore, to beg" and "Simple eye" or "one-eyed creature") and a verb form of the Spanish word "tangar" meaning "to trick" or "to swindle". Gooogle Maps tells me it's also the name of a settlement in Tajikistan, but I can't verify that in reliable sources. Wikipedia search results find primarily partial title matches for several Iranian vilages, and phrases in Indonesian or Malay. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my new comment after the second relist. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ambiguous (various foreign words per nom, Tangon River per Narky Blert, and Palangan, Kurdistan per original target), but I do not believe a dab page is warranted, mainly per WP:DABDIC and that I struggle to find any English coverage that refers to either of Tangon River and Palangan, Kurdistan as simply "Tangan" (no "River", no accents). eviolite (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. We've got a number of sources that use "Tangan" (with or without "river") as the name of the river, and there's also a village whose article gives "Tangan" as synonym. Both are valid dab entries, and we're not including the Malay word for 'hand', so WP:DABDIC shouldn't concern us. The only question that I see is if there is a primary topic, and here the river certainly has a very strong claim. – Uanfala (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget with hatnote per Narky, second choice DAB per Uanfala. "Tangan" seems to be a fairly obscure alternate name for Palangan, while it's an alternate transliteration of Tangon, and so I would think the latter to be the primary topic. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but that's my read. I don't at all see the argument for deletion here. If there are multiple meanings, we disambiguate or point to one and hatnote to the others. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a case for deletion. Instead of creating navigational infrastructure which will lock readers into accessing only the topics that we've explicitly included, it's better to leave it all to the search engine (first making sure the term concerned is prominently mentioned in the relevant articles). That way, when new content gets added that mentions other topics with the same name, they will remain available through the search results. That's how the reasoning goes; I haven't seen it used at RfD for deleting anything, though I do follow it myself when abstaining from the creation of redirects (however, I make sure to watch the title, because sooner or later someone else will come along and create a redirect, likely to a completely different topic, which will then necessitate disambiguation). From this vantage point, deletion is best, but disambiguation is better than redirecting: because if someone created a link to this page intending some other topic, then they'd get notified if that page were a dab and so they'd be able to both correct their link and expand the dab with the relevant entry; if the page is a redirect, that opportunity will likely be missed and the encyclopedia will end up with one more incorrect link.
    I prefer disambiguation for a few other reasons as well. First off, I see it as the default option, the neutral ground, departing from which will require some positive evidence as to why one rare name for an obscure topic should be treated as primary over an equally rare name for another obscure topic – disambiguating saves us the time of engaging with such an unexciting and unimportant question. Even if there is a primary topic, disambiguating may still be desirable, particularly if, as is the case here, the hatnote would be for an obscure alternative meaning (the village) of an obscure alternative spelling ("Tangan" for "Tangon"): if there is a hatnote here, it will clutter the screens of the two thousand readers who visit the article every year, when in fact it will be needed for probably only one or two of them. Another reason for preferring disambiguation is that a separate page can more easily accommodate more entries: it's alright to have a dab's "See also" link to Tangan-tangan, Tongan or Tanggang, but adding those to a hatnote will increase the clutter. – Uanfala (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through the search results, I've come across another village with the name. So, I've taken the liberty of drafting a dab page below the redirect. Obviously, if there's consensus for redirecting, then four of the five links from that dab page can simply be moved to a hatnote. – Uanfala (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different options being proposed here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are multiple articles that I failed to find when doing the WP:BEFORE for this nomination, I think disambiguation is the best option here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive star[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Supermassive star

Brian Pumper[edit]

The only mention of this name in the article is from an interview, saying Brian Pumper would not be a member. Does not appear to be a valid target for this redirect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving the current situation is the purpose of this discussion. (I removed the pipe at the Dogg page.)
"insignificant" As I argued above, receiving notable industry awards for his work makes him encyclopedic. Apart from that, WP:CHEAP, and deleting does not improve matters. Paradoctor (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of keys on a standard US 105-key computer keyboard[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cañon[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Revans Institute[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Revans Institute

North-South divide in Scotland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#North-South divide in Scotland

Template:CCC Team riders[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ukrainian Revolution of 2013[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Ukrainian Revolution of 2013

Elmezzi Graduate School of Molecular Medicine[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

March 5[edit]

Ćajtanja[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Decke[edit]

I cannot see how this redirect makes sense; it's tagged as {{R from alternative language}}, but it seems wikt:Decke refers to covering cloths and ceilings/roofs rather than any musical term; the dewiki article for the target is de:Korpus (Musikinstrument) (not Decke). It was created as part of Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/10, but that does not provide any insight. eviolite (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

de:Decke (Saiteninstrument) is the relevant article for string instrument sound boards. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. I merged the Wikidata items accordingly. I still lean towards deletion per WP:RLOTE, however. eviolite (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Petersglocke. Jay (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I may be wrong, but my reading of that article is that it is referred to as "Decke Pitter" or "Dekke Pitter", rather than "Decke" by itself. The dewiki article has a few references that mention "decke" but it's always in the phrase "decke Pitter" or "decken Pitter". eviolite (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was misled by the way it was mentioned at that article. I have fixed it there and struck off my vote. Jay (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Davis (blogger)[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Was formerly at Michelle Davis, but moved for search engine reasons. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The paragraph at the target article is about her and her partner. I wondered about inserting their names there, but it seemed unkind. People who are searching for her will be getting to the story and links they're looking for. We could add the name of the blog into both the redirect and the article, maybe? valereee (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've clarified the target. valereee (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Valereee's latest edits at the target. Jay (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If kept, this will need to be moved back to its original location, as there is no other subject on Wikipedia using this name. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you point me to where the guideline says that? But if that's the case, Michelle Davies can be made a disambig page. Jay (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      per WP:MOVEREDIRECT the page should not be moved, but a companion redirect created at the base name if this is kept. As there are no other people by this name with an article, and no obvious WP:DABMENTIONs a disambiguation page seems unlikely to be viable at the present time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Orthodox Ochrid Archbishopric with the Pechka Patriarchy[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

West Korea[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Top radio[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Top radio

Religions in Giurtelecu Şimleului[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Giurtelecu Şimleului Synagogue[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Giurtelecu Şimleului Synagogue

Devastated the island of Puerto Rico[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Meanings of asteroid names (9001-1000)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gabriel Vargas (footballer)[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Warp Zone (Wii)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Callao Roads[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Drawsko (jezioro)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Drawsko (jezioro)

Doublé[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Doublé

Dongbien[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Computerwoche (0170-5121)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Computerwoche (0170-5121)

Altgrad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Altgrad

Brageirac (vila)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Brageirac (vila)

Bogengrad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Bogengrad

`Id kull-il-Qiddisin[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

March 4[edit]

Electric Universe (physics)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Electric Universe (physics)

Abeceda[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Erin Sheehan[edit]

Deletion; page created unnecessary confusion. Page stats reveal that people are not searching for this obscure survivor of a crime. KidAd • SPEAK 20:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine. If we determine here there shouldn't be a redirect to the Virginia tech page, then the politician page should be moved by default. Or we could decide to disambiguate at the base name. If kept as is, though, a hatnote should be added, and a future RM could always then address the ptopic question. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Complicating the matter though, is that the redirect is the result of a WP:BLAR. So perhaps it should really be restored and sent to AfD? Mdewman6 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Erin Sheehan. And as a default for non-ambiguous pages, move Erin Sheehan (politician) to Erin Sheehan. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per WP:BLAR and send to AfD. There is a mention of Erin Sheehan in the Norris Hall shootings section of the target, but it's a single mention with the sole purpose of attributing a quote so nowhere near enough to anchor a redirect. I'm almost certain that AfD will delete the sub-stub about them, but it is not speediable and has not been discussed so it cannot be deleted here. Add a hatnote to the politician from the restored article and mentioned them at the AfD so the closer will know to move that article if/when the shooting survivor's article is deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Erin Sheehan (politician) over redirect as the primary topic. Virginia Tech's Erin Sheehan is clearly non-notable and should not be restored. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So which speedy deletion criterion does the article meet? Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not share your opinion that former articles must be speediable to be deleted here. If there is consensus to delete, that is all that is needed. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have never been able to explain how this is compatible with the deletion policy and guidelines like WP:BLAR, so I don't expect you to be able to this time (but I can hope), but it helps the closer and any editors unfamiliar with RfD to articulate that it is contrary to policy. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, this is the most fundamental principle of WP:RFD: 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. This is a potentially problematic redirect, so after a week or more of discussion, if there is consensus to delete it will be deleted (and then Erin Sheehan (politician) can be moved there). I actually don't see how WP:BLAR is relevant with this redirect. It explains what happens when there is disagreement with the blanking of an article, but I don't see anyone actually arguing that the Virigina Tech Erin Sheehan should have an article so there is no disagreement here. -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to understand BLAR better. Does a disagreement with a BLAR always mean the page should be restored/kept? Because if a disagreement can also mean that the page should be deleted, then this RfD looks like a late contested BLAR. Jay (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In WP:BLAR, the disagreement is referring to the act of blanking the article. At RfD, that would take the form of an editor making an argument in favor of an article on the topic. That can take the form of a delete !vote; if the argument for deletion is to encourage the creation of an article on the topic, we might as well restore the article then (the caveat being if the article is not in restore-worthy shape, and WP:TNT may be better). If the subject of the article were to be someone with no credible claim of significance, that's not something we want to restore and the redirect should be deleted (given no scope of discussion of the subject at the target). Furthermore, even if there is a disagreement it may be easier/better to settle it at RfD depending on the context of the dispute. BLAR mentions that other methods of dispute resolution should be used and goes on to call out AfD by name, but RfD is also a forum of dispute resolution. My rule of thumb is: if the status quo is an article, it should be discussed as one at AfD; if the status quo is a redirect, it should be discussed as one at RfD. As I mentioned to Mdewman6 earlier, I do agree that AfD is the better forum overall. However, it does a disservice to AfD to dump our junk over onto them simply because it used to be an article over a decade ago for five minutes; we have the ability to determine whether or not—at a bare minimum—a given article would stand a chance at AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be fine to reach consensus here that the redirect should not be kept, and then perform a round-robin move that would maintain the history of the blanked article, however, in that case the page history with the previous article would be at an inappropriate title (the article's subject was not, to my knowledge, a politician) and could not easily be restored for that reason. Therefore, it would be best the redirect be deleted first in that case, and I tend to agree with Thryduulf that in most cases of a past BLAR deletion is a decision best reached at AfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no, it would not be fine to perform a round-robin move that places the Virginia Tech Erin Sheehan at an inappropriate title. Instead, we can keep the edit history of this redirect by suppress moving the redirect to eg. Erin Sheehan (Virginia Tech) (and keeping it as a redirect to the VT shooting!) and then the politician can be moved to the base title. I also agree that a WP:BLAR disagreement is best adjudicated at AfD. However, I maintain that WP:BLAR is inapplicable here because no such disagreement has presented itself here. Restoring former articles that no one is advocating for lead to silly and unnecessary AfDs that could have easily been taken care of at RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, moving the redirect to an acceptable alternative, disambiguated title to make way for the obvious primary topic would certainly be superior to having the history at the wrong subject. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and move other page). Generally, content is only deleted on Wikipedia through CSD, PROD, AfD, and more obscurely PDEL. At the same time, however, there is nothing forbidding RfD from deleting redirects with content in their history, and most everyone agrees that there are some such redirects that can be deleted; it's just a question of where we draw the line. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and thus I draw that line at "would be speedily deleted, would likely not have a PROD challenged, or would have a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving AfD". This has a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving AfD. Sending this to AfD wastes editor-hours. Deleting it now wastes no usable content. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ben Mattias[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Joseph Ben Mattias

Bloodbender[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Bloodbender

Book 4: Air[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Top Albums Sales[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Top Albums Sales

Hot Albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Hot Albums

Avatar-Bending Master[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Almighty (rapper)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Almighty (rapper)

Possible Debuting Countries In The Eurovision Dance Contest[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Flavio Josefo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Flavio Josefo

יוסף בן מתתיהו[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#יוסף בן מתתיהו

Gamma-amino butyne acid[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation)

Afghan War (2001–current)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Afghan War (2001–current)

Dick pic program[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#Dick pic program

Constitutive nations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Constitutive nations

Elf cat[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article, leaving the association between the redirect and the target article unclear. Also, Elf cat was previously an article which was redirected to the current retarget via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf cat. Steel1943 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, add content at target consistent with close of the AfD. The article was redirected, not deleted. If content from the redirected article is useful for adding to the current target, simply take what is desired from the article in the page history and add to the target with an edit summary along the lines of "merged content from [[Special:Permalink/808108479|this version]] of [[Elf cat]]" to provide adequate attribution. Would also be good to use the {{copied}} template on the redirect and target talk pages to have an explicit record of what was done. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore sourced section at the list per Mdewman6. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and include the section in that article based on the deleted article as per the AfD discussion. Fieari (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMcCandlish can you create a summary of Elf cat that can be added to the list, as you suggested here, and at the AfD? Jay (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if I can have the original restored to userspace to summarize it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The original is available in the page history. Nothing was actually deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 1[edit]

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit

Minimal criminal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Minimal criminal

Wikipedia talk:SOAP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#Wikipedia talk:SOAP

Western leftism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#Western leftism

Wikipedia:BC[edit]

This page should be made a disambiguation page, for the reason that I outline for other redirects (edited) of this ilk: undue focus (to quote another RfD commentor) on a niche WikiProject, when there are a few other pages (like WP:Bureaucrats) that can also fit this acronym. Even though the Brit. Col. WikiProject is not as dormant as others, it is still not fairly accommodating all navigators of this redirect. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For another example of provincial WikiProject being dabified this way, see WP:MB and its RfD. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all my comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#MS and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#EE. Unless you can show some evidence of this redirect being actually (not theoretically) problematic (for example by a significant proportion of links being intended for a different target than the current one) then there is only harm and no benefit from change. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, but not per the nominator, who has failed to advance any convincing rationale for why this should be disambiguated. Potential ambiguity is not on it's own a sufficient reason to break incoming links, nor are vague assertions that the target is niche. The whole point of shortcut redirects is to provide a quick way of navigating to pages, disambiguation essentially destroys a large part of the utility of them. This should be disambiguated because it originally targeted WP:Bootcamp, and was widely used in welcome templates for new users before being retargeted to point at the wikiproject, in fact WT:BC still points to the old place. Doing a spot check of incoming links to this redirect suggests to me that a significant proportion of them (certainly several thousand) are supposed to be targeting the help page. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per 192.76.8.70. There appear to be a very large number of incoming links intending the Bootcamp, and as far as I can see only about two dozen uses for the British Columbia project. The dab page could then also have entries for MOS:BC (probably a more plausible target than any other), Wikipedia:Basic copyediting, and possibly others. – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tangan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Tangan

Lynching of Wollo University professors[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; misleading redirect. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to pre-redirect version. This along with some 100 articles were part of an AfD which closed to encourage smaller batches of nominations, but this was not re-nominated. The talk page discussions had support for redirect with the suggestion from Platonk that if, after doing the redirect method, there is objection then one could always undo the redirect and start a proposal.. Jay (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and AFD, noting that the editor who BLAR'd the redirect has since been blocked as a sockpuppet (which would normally be grounds for a speedy restore, but in this case they had the support of a few editors in good standing). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare character)[edit]

No articles link to redirect. Created by user who has a nine-page talk page archive of notices for deletion of redirects, categories and orphaned images, the majority of which have been removed. AldezD (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Paradoctor. This is a character in that movie, it is discussed at the target. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean Retarget? Because that's what I propose, and what you said below. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no anchor for the paragraph Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) at Nancy Thompson (A Nightmare on Elm Street); this current target article discusses the topic. The rationale for keeping the redirect is the same, the target is different. It should keep pointing to the Nancy article. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are saying here makes no sense. Both redirects should go to the same target, yet on one you !vote retarget, and on the other you vote keep. Would you please clarify what you are voting for? Paradoctor (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This redirect contains "character", and the target is a fictional character article discussing the fictional Heather. The other redirect is missing "character" and could equally refer to the actress herself instead of her fictionalized version, thus should target the movie, since both are equially represented there under the topic of "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" instead of "Wes Craven's New Nightmare character". The "character" redirect thus justifiably redirects to a character article, where a variant of that character occurs with the name "Heather" in a paragraph of coverage. The "character"-less redirect should point to the film article, as it could be referring to the real-ife actress as well as the fictionalized actress character, and thus points to the film article where both occur in the context of that movie. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If "Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare)" could also refer to the actress, it would be ambiguous between the real actress and the fictional actress. If the real actress is the primary meaning, the redirect should point to Heather Langenkamp. If the fictional actress is the primary, it should point to the same target as the other redirect, as both are about the the fictional actress.
    Either way, it should not point to the Nancy article. Subtopic redirects go to their supertopic, not other articles excerpting the supertopic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although the nomination gives no proper reason, delete, unless we have a pattern of creating disambiguated redirects of actors to their character roles. I believe this redirect has been disambiguated to distinguish the fictionalized character from the person Heather Langenkamp, and we already have Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare) that does that. Jay (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still prefer retarget, if for no other reason than WP:CHEAP, but with this rationale I could live with a delete. Paradoctor (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PopCap Games Framework[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sope Willams- Elegbe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#Sope Willams- Elegbe

Ask The Big Banana[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Birdman Coast to Coast[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sophia the Martyr (Q15916381)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7

Gamma-aminobutylic acid[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

∾[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#∾

Supermassive star[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Supermassive star

Mini-Pufts[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Mass formation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#Mass formation

๐[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

February 26[edit]

Mountains of the Moon (The Shadows song)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gordon Boulevard[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Attractive[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Kyiv Offensive[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Samson Kayo[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Monarchy of Hong Kong[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: too soon

Warp Zone (Wii)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Warp Zone (Wii)

Taiwanfu[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Margaret Bandele Olayinka.[edit]

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

Callao Roads[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Callao Roads

Callao, Chile[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The last idiot[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kevin Sellers[edit]

The redirect was created less than 2 hours after deletion via this RfD by a voter who had opposed deletion. I am nominating it as a fresh RfD for Deletion as I was not sure if it could be tagged as a WP:G4 (as the target is now different). The current target was brought up at the previous RfD, but there ware no opinions about it, and the redirect was deleted irrespective of the merits of the current target. Jay (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the delete votes at the earlier RfD were to facilitate uninhibited search results, and three (including the nomination) were because of no mention at the then target Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. The closer Explicit can add the deletion rationale at that RfD (and here as well). Jay (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the updated closure comment at the previous RfD, it was deleted for both reasons, and because there was no justification for a retarget. Jay (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sellers wrote "Blue Skies Again". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have supplied a deletion rationale to my closure at the original RFD per Jay's request. ✗plicit 01:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous consensus. This redirect shouldn't have been re-created when the proposed targeting was rejected so recently. - Eureka Lott 23:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desirability[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Tectonic Plates[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep the first and retarget the second

Russian land[edit]

I think this should point at Territorial evolution of Russia, as this target covers the full expanse of "Russian land". My understanding is that the prior targeting is based on the etymological origin of Ruthenia as "Land of the Rus", but that is not equivalent to "Russian land" (see Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia for the history of these terms), nor is the latter phrase mentioned at the target, and the equation of "Russian land" with Ruthenia is arguably in line with fringe Russian irredentist POVs. Ruthenia is briefly mentioned at the target I am suggesting, so anyone that is indeed looking for Ruthenia will still find their way to what they are looking for. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, User:Rosguill, Russian land has nothing to do with Russia, this is a confusion. 'Russian land' (Руська земля) means the same as Rus' (region) which is synonyms with Ruthenia. And Ruthenia is not mentioned at the target you are suggesting, Carpathian Ruthenia is, but Carpathian Ruthenia is only small part of Ruthenia. Other parts are Ukraine and Belarus. There is no consensus between scolars whether to include Russia in Ruthenia (Russian land), although most of them include it too. --Heanor (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Surveying English academic texts does not support your translation/interpretation: this text uses "Russian Land" to refer to territory in the Urals, this text uses the term to refer to Muscovy, and the majority of the results use the term to talk about "Russian land reform", "Russian land acquisition", "Russian Land Commune" etc. (i.e. things to do with the land of the Russian Empire or Federation). A more fluent and contemporary translation of Руська земля would be Rus'ian land, as in [27], [28], [29]. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As for whether the target includes a link to content about the Rus' and Ruthenia, there's also this line in the first section: For the history of Rus' and Moscovy before 1547 (see Kievan Rus' and Grand Duchy of Moscow). signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree with you that Rus'ian land is a more fluent and better term, but the difference with 'Russian land' is so small that I propose to mark it a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Rus'ian land. --Heanor (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that given the basic semantic meaning of the term "Russian land", readers could potentially search that trying to learn about Russia itself, and even peer-reviewed publications use the phrase that way, per my evidence above. I think that pointing to Territorial evolution of Russia and adding a hatnote at the top pointing to Ruthenia and Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia would be the most effective way to ensure that everybody finds what they're looking for. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very good point. But this is a proper name and the current redirect represents our best article representing the subject. Russia is prominently linked and discussed in the target article. Maybe it needs a hat note? —Michael Z. 16:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 
    Historic core of Rus'.png
    “Russian Land” is a dated or POV translation of Ru. russkaia zemlia, Uk. rusʼka zemlia, OES rusĭskaiȩ zemliȩ, more precisely rendered as Rus Land. In the Kyivan Rus period it was considered to be the lands around Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslav, or sometimes more broadly as all of Kyivan Rus. This is not controversial: here’s a map based on three historians’ estimates: w:ru:Насонов, Арсений Николаевич, Boris Rybakov, and Petro Tolochko). Starting from the Muscovy period the term came to be used in Moscow to refer to its lands. Perhaps this proper name should be moved to capitalized Russian Land. —Michael Z. 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if starting a stub article Rus Land already might be less work and more productive than concluding this discussion? —Michael Z. 16:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between historical and contemporary uses. (ie. territorial evolution of Grand Muscovy, and the land of the Kievan Rus) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, the term is generic enough that readers may not be looking for this very specific meaning. CMD (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, eviolite (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as per above. Veverve (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the expression was recently used by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow to refer to the Kievan Rus': "May the Lord protect the Russian land. When I say 'Russian,' I use an ancient expression from the 'Tale of Bygone Years' - 'Where did the Russian land come from?' The land, which now includes Russia, and Ukraine, and Belarus, and other tribes and peoples. So that the Lord preserves the Russian land from external enemies, from internal discord, so that the unity of our Church is strengthened." (English source, Russian original).
To me, this support the need for DAB. Veverve (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 25[edit]

United States Surgical Corporation[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Beckton Riverside[edit]

Reason #10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." This redirect is used to have something to link to, as if Wikipedia had any useful information on this planned DLR station.

But we don't. Much better to delete the redirect and unlink until linking gives a reader something useful. CapnZapp (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Beckton Riverside DLR station and Beckton Riverside station are separate redirects (that I'm about to nominate on today's page), this redirect should target information about the development the proposed station would serve that either has a link to or contains information about the proposed station, however I can't find any article that currently has any such information. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the development proposed in the next 10/20 years in the area (see here) I think an article may emerge in the future - but for now, Beckton seems a reasonable place to link the redirect. Could always stick a line in the Beckton article, if you'd like. Turini2 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Turini2 I hope you understand that it is precisely because the target article does not contain any useful on "Beckton Riverside" I have nominated the redirect for deletion. In other words, it is the opposite of "reasonable" to redirect readers to articles that add nothing useful. If the article does contain significant information ten years from now, you are welcome to then recreate the redirect (or even flesh it out as a stand-alone article) but please do not consider "gaming the system" by adding content to Beckton solely to justify keeping the redirect. Thank you and have a good day CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CapnZapp: adding information to the target that is encyclopaedic and DUE that supports a redirect is not gaming the system, it is improving the encyclopaedia and something that happens quite often. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, when and if useful info can be found. However, I was responding to Turini2's comment - I am talking about the (hypothetical) case where editors make an effort to mention the redirected term for the chief purpose of not having to delete a redirect, not for the purpose of actually bringing the reader useful information. Anyway, this discussion is well and good, but there still is nothing on the Beckton page about Beckton Riverside, and we don't create redirects "for future use". CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well we do create {{R with possibilities}} redirects for future use, but they should still take the reader to some relevant content in the meanwhile. As for not bringing the reader useful information, how would you classify this edit of mine which was made so the (imo useful) redirect Rail transport in the Maldives would not be deleted? In this specific case though you can see I am recommending deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to limit my response to simply noting our agreement. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myall Creek[edit]

Suggest to disambiguate or move Myall Creek, New South Wales here or redirect to Myall Creek, New South Wales. The 2014 RFD seemed correct to target the massacre but since then an article about the town has been created. The town article can probbaly serve as a WP:DABCONCEPT in respect to the massacre as its linked prominently. Given Dalby, Queensland and the streams in Queensland it may be better to disambiguate, see ceb:Myall Creek if the streams are notable. There are links at Quinalow, Barnard River and Queensland Women's Historical Association for the stream(s). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the primary topic. I don't see any of the other uses rivalling the massacre. I do appreciate there are more uses that have developed since the 2014 RfD, and would welcome a disambiguation listing them at Myall Creek (disambiguation). -- Tavix (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civil court[edit]

Civil courts do much more than hear lawsuits. I recall that when I changed my name there were something like 30 options on the form, and only 2 or 3 involved lawsuits. An article that explains that fairly well, if too briefly, is Civil law (common law). I think it would be better to retarget there. The other concern with this redirect is that it could be ambiguous with a court operating under Civil law (legal system), but the proposed target links to the DAB Civil law, so I think that handles that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree the current target isn't great, but I'm wondering whether a dab page might be better. The top hits on google for me relate to County Court (England and Wales) for example, but this will likely be different for those googling from outside that jurisdiction. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have sooo many stub articles on marginally distinct legal topics. I'd just as soon not encourage creation of another. What is there to be said about civil courts that can't be said in the article on civil law? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that both Civil law (common law) and Civil law (legal system) hatnote the DAB Civil law.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be clear agreement that the status quo is unsatisfactory, but no clear consensus between retargeting, deletion, and disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to Extraordinary Writ's suggestion, although I'd still prefer my own. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A separate disambiguation page, as Thryduulf proposes, would be acceptable as well, I think. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having thought more about this, I think a dedicated disambiguation page, linking to but separate from, Cvil law would be the best. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page Civil law or create a separate disambiguation page. Schleiz (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double-redirect[edit]

If these article-space redirects should exist, they should both lead to the same target. The problem is that neither of the current targets is appropriate - the disambiguation page at Redirect doesn't mention double redirects at all, and the project-space page is not something that is aimed at or particularly useful for readers or very new editors. I think I favour deletion, but pointing both at the article-space page is better than two XNRs. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' double redirect, common word on Wikipedia, less common elsewhere, points the readers at the right page. Don't care much about what happens to the hyphenated version, retargetting to Wikipedia space or deletion both seem acceptable. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:Cross-namespace redirects, although only an essay, has some interesting points to consider. I was disappointed to find that Double redirect doesn't redirect autologically to Wikipedia:Double redirect as suggested above. Certes (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Retarget the first to the second's target. Both can be used as shortcuts on talk pages. Some editors might use the hyphen, some won't. These should be retained as long-term shortcuts under the consensus described at WP:XNR. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Double redirect to Redirect or weak delete both. The value of these redirects as WP:XNRs is questionable. At the present time, Redirect contains a hatnote directing readers to go to Wikipedia:Redirect for the policy if they arrived at Redirect erroneously; if anything, the setup of having these redirects target Redirect with the hatnote at the top of the page will help new readers understand how the "Wikipedia:" namespace versus the article namespace work, specifically in regards to using the "Wikipedia:" prefix to reach pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace and learn to navigate Wikipedia using the prefix when applicable. Absent of that ... delete them both to allow the search results to populate appropriate articles (which honestly isn't helpful ... but is more helpful than WP:XNRs) and the fact that "Double redirect" is not an exact match for the title "Redirect"; the former option (retargeting Double redirect to Redirect) is probably more helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh ... the more I read my statement, the more I don't know. I guess I'll just accept that I don't know and bow out, but anyone is free to read my struck out statement if they want to contemplate the stance. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both We shouldn't have redirects to project space, and there is no good reason to make this an exception. If someone has a good article space target, I might change my mind, but I seriously doubt that one exists. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per Oiyarbepsy. Veverve (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: Redirects should not exist from mainspace to Wikipedia namespace. Double-redirect is probably not an useful search term for the casual Wikipedia reader. I don't find it in pages listed under the Redirect disambiguation. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains per Mx. Granger as the place in mainspace that talks about this topic. As for Godsy's concern that the article section doesn't explicitly mention the term: if a reader searches for "double redirect" and they're taken to a section whose title is "Redirect chains" and whose first sentence is "One redirect may lead to another", then I don't see how they may be confused. – Uanfala (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains per Mx. Granger. Schleiz (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Софија[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Hornography[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gamma-amino butyne acid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Gamma-amino butyne acid

Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation)

Afghan War (2001–current)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Afghan War (2001–current)

Dick pic program[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Dick pic program

Constituent monarchies[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Download Songs[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Download Albums[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Top Albums Sales[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Top Albums Sales

Hot Albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Hot Albums

Tweener (basketball)[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1077191605"