Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 144 0 144
TfD 0 0 1 0 1
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 3 0 3
RfD 0 0 28 0 28
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss 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]

April 5[edit]

On heat[edit]

In heat reasonably targets the same page, but "on heat" does not seem to be a synonym or related phrase, and is likely ambiguous. Suggest deletion to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wauchula, FL μSA[edit]

Nonsensical search term using Greek letter μ instead of Latin letter U. Senator2029 【talk】 19:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While on first sight I would agree with the nom, these sorts of redirects were previously subject to RfD and were kept. We would need a compelling argument about how things have changed since the past RfD, or why the reasoning and/or consensus from then was (and still is) incorrect. Note that there appear to be dozens of such redirects, not just these two, and we would need to treat them uniformly. Note that I combined the two nominations with the same rationale into a single discussion Mdewman6 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ""μSA" stands for Micropolitan statistical area.
Changed my mind. Redirects are cheap, and this was a valid redirect at one time. Someone might run across "The Villages, FL μSA" in a Federal document or other source and search for the term. As an aside, the Office of Management and Budget, which designates statistical areas, officially names them using two-letter abbreviations for state names, so the above redirects are the official names used by the Federal government. - Donald Albury 22:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suiyuan Offensive[edit]

No mention of "Suiyuan" at the target; looking at Suiyuan, it appears to refer to a former administrative region of China that is not particularly close to Tauran. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Maybe some kind of strange mixup with the unrelated Suiyuan campaign? --Havsjö (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Makarenkothe same, as Yevhen Konoplyanka etc[edit]

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

Ulster (occupied)[edit]

Delete, this term is non-neutral and is not established, thus unlikely to be useful. Balkovec (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blatant violation of NPOV, biased politically motivated redirect that should be deleted. The term doesnt even have widespread use to justify such a redirect in the first place RWB2020 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irish separatists[edit]

superfluous redirect The Banner talk 17:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not every nationalist is also a separatist (regardles of spelling). Unlikely redirects. The Banner talk 17:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so strange, you created these superfluous redirects. The Banner talk 17:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utricle (fruit)[edit]

Per the description of "utricle" in the target article, as well as third party search results, it seems the subject of this redirect is a different subject than the target article's subject. For this reason, delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinjiki[edit]

Redirect to Forbidden сolor since this is the original meaning, and the title of the novel is secondary. Balkovec (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FRCP (Lon)[edit]

These redirects are not mentioned in any variant in the target article, leaving the target article unclear on what the redirects are meant to refer. The article does contain some variants of "MRCP" with "(Lond)", but "Lond" and not "Lon". Also, any unstable of "FRCP" in the article is not designated with any type of "Lon" or "Lond" suffix. It does not seem as though readers will find what they are looking for if they use these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep FRCP stands for Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. Once you pass the exam and you become a consultant you can apply for fellowship, once you pass a more difficult exam. FRCP(Lon) is the standard term that is used in documentation, for that process. It is worth keeping. There is an FRCP in Edinburgh as well. So the London part is needed. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scleroderma(medicine)[edit]

The disambiguator "(medicine)" seems misleading since the subject is not a medicine but rather a disease. Also, the redirect's title fails WP:RDAB due to a lack of space between the title and the disambiguator; the properly spaced title, Scleroderma (medicine), does not exist, but I do not think it should either per my initial statement. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edge(Tech Fest of Techno India)[edit]

The target section doesn't exist, and neither does the redirect's title's properly-spaced variant Edge (Tech Fest of Techno India). (In 2014, this redirect was an article for less than 5 minutes before being subject to a WP:BLAR.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minister(Government)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the title and the disambiguator. However, though the properly-spaced variant, Minister (Government), does not exist, the version with a lower case "g", Minister (government), exists and targets the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foot length[edit]

A related redirect Foot (length) seems to helpfully target the nominated redirect's target page; however, without "length" as a disambiguator (such as it is in the nominated redirect), a reader could be looking up this term expecting to find the article Shoe size. I'm not sure if the best option here would be to retarget to shoe size, or just hatnote the current target and call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The length of a foot" does indeed have a double meaning in English. It can refer to the length of any human foot, or to the length of the metrological unit known as a foot. I think that the length of the standard foot (the unit) should be the most useful to redirect to. "Shoe size" can also refer to foot width in addition to foot length, so is more ambiguous. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have revised the hatnote at target to offer a link to Shoe size rather than unhelpfully linking to the primary topic Foot. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Cop Air[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. In addition, third party search engines seem to return results for both the target subject and skateboarding; it seems to be a trick of some sort, but the name doesn't seem to be exclusive to either sport. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The King (2008 film)[edit]

None of the "film" subjects at the target disambiguation page were released in 2008. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#R2. Looks like this is a {{R from move}} from a draftification by the nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it was an old draft that I restored and moved to the draft namespace in the event it gets worked on to a state where it can be brought back to the article namespace. And ... I just realized that I could have moved the article to the draft namespace, then tagged this nominated redirect for {{Db-r2}} instead of retargeting it back to the disambiguation page, as stated. (I used to be more active with this process ... I think my head isn't working with a full set of marbles at the moment, but thankfully I'm acquiring them again.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hole (golf)[edit]

The redirect targeting its current target could potentially be a WP:SURPRISE. The use of "hole" in golf itself is apparently ambiguous: Does or refer to the hole which the ball is hit into, or the segment of the course that has the aforementioned hole? I'm thinking a solution here would be to retarget to Golf#Play of the game where both concepts seem to be mentioned together. Steel1943 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Ford (activist)[edit]

No mention at target, Libertarian Party of Rhode Island. —Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was the former Chair of the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island at the time I made the redirect. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urens[edit]

This presently targets the dab page at Uren, but none of the articles listed there (plaecs and peopel with the surname) reasonably take a plural. Until 2018 it targetted to Myrmecia urens, search results indicate there are other genuses with a species called "Urens" so redirecting to one of them would be WP:XY. I'm not sure whether it best to disambiguate the species (I'm not immediately seeing any other uses) or to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete species names never stand alone in any formal/encyclopedic context. There is no need to disambiguate them. Species names may occasionally stand alone in informal (usually conversational, not written) contexts between biologists when the context of the genus has already been established. That is a classic partial title match scenario, just as a much as if I agree to meet a friend from my city at "the zoo" (our shared city of residence establishing the context of the only zoo in that city). Plantdrew (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plantdrew. For a discussion of specific epithets on DAB pages, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) (the consensus was: they don't belong there.) Narky Blert (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the people with the surname is obviously a list of Urens, so if you were looking for people by that surname, the plural form would be a logical search term -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 2 3[edit]

Highly unusual and confusing way to call these two films, extremely unlikely to be used a search term. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Wiki[edit]

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

Foppington's Law[edit]

See [1] [2]. Funny and accurate, but not mentioned at target and unlikely to be mentioned in the near future. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was mentioned back in 2018--2019 at the draft, but the draft staled out and hasn't been recovered since. Okay to delete. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not mentioned at the target, and there's no encyclopedic potential for the term. — Bilorv (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 4[edit]

American financial crisis[edit]

There were lots of financial crises, e.g. the Great Depression. Why is this particular one being singled out? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think so. That doesn't include things like the Dot-com bubble, for example. The problem, as I see it, is that "financial crisis" is such a nebulous, ill-defined, overly broad term. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't love redirects to categories, but that might be the best option here, and the presence of a navbox in the category softens the blow at least. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • American Financial Crisis was an occasionally-used contemporary media name/reference for the 2008-2009 recession, at that time. So, to answer the earlier question, the redirect was there because people were still figuring out what to call it, while it was happening. Since different names for that event subsequently became popular, it's likely better to redirect to a more general term or list. Xaliqen (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 six 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); Edited 09:55, 19 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is support for multiple disambiguation pages, and one of the suggested DAB titles is Sanctions involving Russia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are not really ambiguous terms, as the phrase can refer to all such sanctions collectively, so create a set index. BD2412 T 00:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify or DABify per all above. Veverve (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft set index or disambiguation page may helpful for consensus and to get this discussion closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting wedge[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. My knowledge of golf is so-so regarding types of golf clubs; I've never heard of this specific phrase before, so I looked around third party search engines for a bit, and the subject of this redirect is most likely a type/subtopic of the target's subject, but a more specific article probably exists or could be made. At present, the two articles I could find that could be related to this topic are Wedge (golf) and Putter, and if I had to guess which one of the aforementioned topics the subject of this redirect s connected, it would be Wedge (golf), but this redirect isn't mentioned in that article either. With all of that being said, the best options here would probably be to retarget to Wedge (golf) or Putter (Wedge (golf) preferred) after adding a mention of this redirect to the respective article, or delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immutocracy[edit]

Neologism not mentioned at the target, no hits on GScholar and nothing relevant in internet search results. Delete unless evidence of use or other justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 28 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! 20:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted (jewish)[edit]

This redirect targets an anchor to a paragraph regarding the use of the term "restricted" in country clubs and the term (per the article) is specific to Jewish people. However, the redirect as titled seems vague. With the title of the redirect, I would possibly expect to run across a topic related to The Holocaust or something similar, making the current target a potential WP:SURPRISE. In addition, a similar and more specific redirect, Restricted (country club), exists and targets the same location. For the aforementioned reasons, it would be best to delete this redirect so readers can utilize Wikipedia's search function for potentially better (and broader) results rather than being pigeonholed into arriving at this target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ILGA Purges[edit]

Old redirect that gets no views with a very problematic history. This was originally written as a pure POV piece promoting a pederast agenda; take the quotes "The Gay and Lesbian Association Against Defamation (GLAAD) itself spread lies about a gay association, NAMBLA, in order to score political points with the right-wing" and "It's a great victory for gay liberation when one of it's more vocal exponents is a McCarthyite red- and pedo-baiter distorting history in order to maintain a prejudicial social order, and shit on the grave of one of the Movement's founders". It was redirected a few weeks later; as it currently stands, I believe this is a completely unneeded pov redirect. MoneytreesTalk🏝️ 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise room[edit]

I'm not sure if these two terms are synonymous. Most third party results for "exercise room" seem to return primarily results for a room customized for exercise equipment in someone's home, whereas the target subject seems to be exclusive to non-residential commercial settings. So, I'm suggesting deletion (in lieu of any retargeting options) since it's quite possible that both the redirect and the target not being the same subject and the target not being what readers are attempting to locate when searching this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gym profit[edit]

The term is not mentioned in the target article. Also, given the existence of similar articles such as Gym, if the concept exists, it would most likely not be exclusive to the redirect's current target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This redirect was an article for about 10 days in 2013 before or was WP:BLARed to its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open Gym[edit]

The term "open gym" is not specifically mentioned in the article. There are some mentions of "open area" and such terms, but not terms as specific as this redirect's title. For this reason, it is unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There was one line of text at this page for 12 minutes in 2006 before being WP:BLARed to its current target, which would clearly not survive a AfD discussion (WP:SNOWBALL). The term "open gym" is a valid search term, likely referring to the general concept of gym facilities and equipment having scheduled periods open for unorganized use (practice, pickup games, etc.) as opposed to being scheduled for a specific activity, like a game or class. However, the uppercase would imply a proper noun and the lowercase Open gym that would imply the general concept is red, and there doesn't seem to be a clearly best redirect target, so delete and defer to search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EPG's)[edit]

The target of this redirect can be referred to by the acronym "EPG" and in the plural form "EPGs" as well; however, the use of parentheses and an apostrophe in this redirect leave it unlikely and WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EP) Minus 1[edit]

The misplaced location of the disambiguator, as well as this being only title that begins with "(EP)" leaves this redirect unlikely and WP:COSTLY. In addition, the title is not the name of the subject which it represents: the title of the subject is Dark Space -I. Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Dealul Manzului)[edit]

Unclear/unnecessary/WP:COSTLY use of parentheses. However, the non-parentheses version, Dealul Manzului, presently does not exist; at the present time, this spelling variation is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 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]
  • Delete Modding is not unique to this game and anyone looking here for information on modding this game, whether we have any or not, would already know we have an article and to go straight there. This redirect would do nothing to help anyone actually searching for the information it implies because they wouldn't be using it in the first place. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity synopsis parts list[edit]

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

MEFeater[edit]

Listed in the references (as well as the references of a few other articles), but no indication of any actual connection with the target Dan Liu. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Cacharel)[edit]

After searching through third party search engines for a bit, I'm not seeing any evidence that the title "Cacharel" appears in parentheses, even in first party sources. Delete this as misleading due to Wikipedia conventions making this look like a disambiguator, as well as not used in any official capacity as a version of the title of the target subject. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Blunderbuss (Teddy Thompson EP)[edit]

WP:COSTLY redirects due to the unlikely and not closed left parenthesis at the beginning of the title. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have created the Teddy Thompson one. Feel free to delete! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Ayan)Virisampatti[edit]

WP:COSTLY redirect due to the lack of space and unconventional/unlikely use of parentheses. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Digital Metaplasticity exists and targets the same target as (Digital)Metaplasticity. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Aniak (Crater()[edit]

Unlikely, WP:COSTLY redirect due to the bizarre use of parentheses. Steel1943 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psalter (Roman Catholic)[edit]

Not sure if this redirect is really useful; redirects are heap but should have a reason and I do not see the reason or this redirect to exist. What do you think? Any opinion is welcome. Veverve (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Problem is not articulated. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod: sometimes - it happens rarely, but it happens - I do not really know what to think about a redirect, I have a vague feeling the redirect may somehow have a problem, so I think to myself: 'I will ask others at the RfD for their opinion, maybe they will have more insight than I have on this redirect'. This is one of those cases. Veverve (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The point that the Roman Catholic Church is connected to the subject of the target is articulated in the first paragraph. The redirect is a singular version of "Psalter". Unless there is another "Psalter" topic which has connection to a topic called "(Roman Catholic)", the redirect is helpful as currently designed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind: Per Psalter, which apparently also has connection to "Roman Catholic", this redirect is vague. Since Psalter is considered a parent topic over the current topic, weak retarget to Psalter. However, since the connection of either subject to "Roman Catholic" is a bit vague/weak, probably better to delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) (Struck. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC) )[reply]
    @Steel1943: The Latin Psalters article lists numerous Psalters which were officially used by the Catholic Church (the Gallican psalter, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, the Pian Psalter, the Nova Vulgata psalter), as well as schemata for psalm reading that the Catholic Church used or uses. I am not trying to make any point to reach a decision, I simply attempt to have a fruitful conversation. Veverve (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not too sure per your statement and my statement. I really do think deletion is more proper than a retarget since the disambiguator is somewhat vague. Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ???? "(Roman Catholic)" is "somewhat vague"? Everything at the current target concerns Roman Catholic psalters, so I really can't see the issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Same could be said with Psalter somewhat since it references the Roman Catholic Church, thus possibly vagueness. Per the articles, looks like it could refer to either. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not following you at all. Psalters are used by all Christian denominations, with "Palter (Roman Catholic)" pretty clearly defining an obvious sub-set. There are some differences - notably Catholic ones use a different numbering system (after a certain point). Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...With that explanation, I'm going to wholly strike my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1819)[edit]

There appears to be no reason for these two years in particular to have redirects from the year in parentheses (and they're the only four-digit years with such redirects as far as I can tell). They are both unlinked and received respectively only 1 and 3 hits this year and 22 and 19 hits last year. Googling is no help as it doesn't distinguish between "1819" and "(1819)", but even if it did there are countless legitimate uses for a year to appear in parentheses in running text that don't indicate anything about its suitability as a search term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Desire[edit]

Potentially a working title, but there are no references to this on the target article or other related articles pertaining to Azerbaijan's participation in that year's Eurovision Song Contest. Suggest deletion unless there is a more relevant target to repoint. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was the original title of the article before it got moved to Mata Hari, because of this teaser. Disambiguation would probably be the best choice per Paradocter. — TheThomanski | t | c | 12:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or delete. The "original title" of the song appears to be an assumption with no sources supporting it as an official initial/original name. If the disambiguation page is the option, I don't think Mata Hari should be included on it, though I have not assessed the other related articles cited by Paradoctor. Grk1011 (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salad vegetable[edit]

The target article does not mention the word "salad" anywhere, leaving the terms unidentified in the target article. In addition, it would probably not be appropriate to retarget these redirects to Salad since the article doesn't seem to be able to identify what a "salad vegetable" is either. Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Salad anyway; even if the article doesn't use the phrase, it does clearly identify plenty of vegetables commonly used in salads. BD2412 T 02:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to salad. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to salad. By defining what "salad" is, the article implicitly defines what a "salad vegetable" is: a vegetable used for salads. Paradoctor (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Salad per Paradoctor and above, most plausible redirect. Bonoahx (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Salad, of course. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit vegetable[edit]

Confusing WP:XY situation: Fruit or Vegetable? (Yeah, it's a common question, but as a redirect, the WP:XY exists regardless where it targets.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to delete, but List of vegetables#Fruits is a possible target (however that list also has sections for "Chile peppers" and "Podded vegetables", which are both fruits; perhaps the list could be modified so "Chile peppers" and "Podded vegetables" are subsections of "Fruit"). Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/refine - I don't think this is an unreasonable search term given the confusion so many seem to have about believing these terms to be mutually exclusive. Plantdrew's target is acceptable, but I prefer Vegetable#Terminology where the confusion is well explained. A7V2 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, refine or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:S[edit]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources, which is possibly the most important resource for newcomer content writers. Currently, WP:S is basically unused, way under the shadow of the main shortcut H:S. Excessive numbers of shortcuts defeat the benefit of shortcuts.

In contrast, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources is probably the most important, undervalued section in the whole of the project for new content writers, and it has shortcuts that are hard to remember. This would be a much better use for WP:S.

If this is not shot down for a reason I don't expect, I will advertise this discussion on the relevant pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation page. A section of a subpage is too specialized for a one-letter shortcut. WP:S could mean a lot things and a cross-namespace redirect to Help:Searching is not the most natural. WP:S has a lot of incoming links but nearly all of them are from alphabetical lists of all one-letter WP shortcuts without saying where they go, so changing it doesn't break those uses. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a disambiguation page out of something that is essentially never used is just silly. Is the aim to make sure that such a high value shortcut remains unused?
    A section of of a subpage may sound "specialised", but this is part of the point. It is not "specialised" but centrally important to the most basic editor function on the project, writing content. This section, currently WP:RSPSS, is way out of balance in terms of how important it is to the prominence of its location. A single-character shortcut may be sufficient to fix that, and will certainly help. I considered suggesting WP:RSPSS be spun out to its own page, but decided against this, because, despite its standalone usefulness to content writing, its maintenance is extremely detailed and it should be boldly edited by newcomers without reading the extensive context present above.
    WP:S could mean a lot of things, but current doesn't. And what better meaning to give it than Sources for content? -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we pick a Sources target then it should be the same as WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCES, meaning Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. I'm fine with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked at that and gave it some thought. In terms of Policy, WP:SOURCES is the root of policy on sources, but it is extremely limited to policy-wonk-thought, and it is not very good, notably in how it fails to adequately cross reference WP:PSTS (Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). Limited to Policy theory that is not immediately practical. It is a partial blurb on the theory that undies the source rules. In contrast, WP:RSPSS is the end result list that edits should consult.
The shortcuts are not meant to be a content guide, but quick reference memorable shortcuts. Editors on the ground do not a quicker reference to the non-practical section of WP:V. They need it to get to the sources cheat sheet, WP:RSPSS.
Also, having multiple catchy shortcuts pointing to the same thing is another waste of catchy shortcuts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this redirect has targeted the current page (or a redirect towards it leftover from page moves) since 2007. At this point, due to targeting the current page for about 15 years, there's too much potential for links in edit summaries to be broken in the event the redirect is retargeted. If necessary to disambiguate "S", Wikipedia:S (disambiguation) could be created, but that may be overkill; it may be better to just add a hatnote for 1–2 other possibilities that "WP:S" could refer to, and call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate per Prime Hunter -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Steel1943 and Do not disambiguate as that makes the shortcut useless for everybody. I've spot-checked a number of the incoming links and they either refer to the current target, WP:SOURCE (which is not the proposed target) or are part of a list. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling at the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

Too early for this redirect. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON, a few similar 2024 Olympics redirects have been deleted over the past couple of months for the same reason. Bonoahx (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Russian Americans[edit]

"White Russian" is a term that historically was used to refer to the modern Belarus, but it also can refer to White people from Russia (as opposed to non-white Russians). It's not clear to me that there is a primary topic here or that "White Russian Americans" is a term that most often talks about Belorussians. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate "White Russian American" does not refer to white people from Russia, and neither does it refer to Russian Americans of "white" ethnicity.
White Russian is ambiguous between Belarusians and (perceived) White movement supporters. Accordingly, White Russian Americans is ambiguous between Belarusian Americans and White émigrés.
No opinion on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Paradoctor (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC) ( added missing qualifier 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC) )[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GHOST (vessel)[edit]

Ships' names are often capitalised, but the target article does not describe a vessel called "GHOST". Note that Ghost (vessel) does not exist. The original intention of this redirect was to target Juliet Marine Systems Ghost. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. A vessel named "Ghost" is not the same as a ghost ship. WP:INCOMPDAB applies here. Paradoctor (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

=U=[edit]

I don't know what this has to do with the topic, and it is impossible to search this emoticon-like keyword with a search engine. I could not nominate this page using Twinkle due to technical problems caused by beginning and ending with an equals sign. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be an error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as {{r without mention}}. The "U" obviously stands for Ustaše (mentioned at U (disambiguation) § Other uses), and the "=" stand for its wings. Similar to the Top Gun logo, if not as literal. Paradoctor (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, I don't get it. I don't see anything about the logo that looks anything like an equals sign, or even like wings. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you talk about the Top Gun logo? If so, I wasn't saying it uses equals signs, just that the design can be seen to invoke an image of wings. If you don't see it, that's fine. Metaphors rarely work for everyone. But they do work for some. Paradoctor (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Maybe this is helpful here. Paradoctor (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not see where the Ustaše logo is supposed to have wings. Veverve (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been a misunderstanding. I was not talking about the graphical logo.
during World War II, its military wings became the Croatian Home Guard and the Ustaše Militia
The infobox explicitly lists two wings: Ustaše Youth and Ustaše Militia. Paradoctor (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think the wings mentioned in the infobox are the symbolified wings? The redirect creator had added mention of this symbol and of ZDS at the target. The symbol was subsequently removed, and a citation needed was added for ZDS (which I have now removed). This says it's a stylised letter U, and this says something I didn't understand: the character of "Ujko Smješko" (Eng. Uncle Smiley – a letter U asn Ustasha is put on the face of a smiley). Without a reference, the redirect title may just be someone's creative rendering or WP:OR. Jay (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think I found it obvious. That does not carry normative power for others, of course.
I don't know why you cited the refs, neither of them appears about the symbol we're discussing here. There can be different symbols for the same thing. As regards "Ujko Smješko", that's just a standard smiley with the mouth replaced by an uppercase "U", like this.
may just be someone's creative rendering I'll assume AGF here, that the contributor reported on what they saw, rather than making it up. Prima facie and all that. Paradoctor (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P. S.: It does not really matter whether the "=" represents wings or not. The question here is whether "=U=" is an Ustaše symbol. So far, we have reason to believe so. Considering the impossibility of using search engine results, this redirect seems invaluable to readers trying to find out the meaning of "=U=". Paradoctor (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking about the refs I mentioned here (theguardian and ombudsman), then they do refer to the symbol of Ustase being discussed here. They do not mention wings or the "=" or similar characters.
So far, we have reason to believe so. How? What I am I missing? Jay (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 3[edit]

En/googlemail[edit]

Appears to be some age-old practice which allowed duplicate articles to be created with "En/" prefix. Only 3 such redirects exist today. No incoming links & non-significant pageviews (479 views combined for the 3 redirects over past 6.5 years), probably accidental visitors like me. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 20:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio)[edit]

I can find no obvious reaoson for this redirect to exist. Nothing links here, it got only 1 view so far this year and only 22 last year (which is higher than I would expect, but not that high), there is no talk page and no summary on creation that sheds any light. Google refuses to distinguish uses with and without parentheses so is actively unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Delete) per nom. I'm not sure why someone would search like this either-it looks like a disambiguator without a term to disambiguate. Regards, (SONIC678) 00:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Soviet War[edit]

I'm not seeing any evidence that this is an alternative name for the civil war based on GScholar and internet searches. Delete unless evidence of use can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"rose tinted spectacles"[edit]

Could be retargeted to rose-colored glasses, but quotation marks make this implausible/WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: I'd have no problem with retargeting (the rose-colored glasses dab page apparently didn't exist when I created this).
But (given that it's a 12-year-old edit I don't remember anything about) I'm not sure what the deal was with the quotes. I can't think of any reason I'd have intentionally included them in the title.
I'm guessing it was an oversight due to cutting-and-pasting the term from a source that included the quotes, which- if the page doesn't already exist- apparently gives you a redlink like this which lets you create the page but includes the quotes.
I notice I created rose tinted spectacles shortly after, so I perhaps realised my mistake. At any rate, we don't really need the quoted version of this redirect, so probably better to just delete it.
16:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubcule (talk • contribs)

Template:R from grapheme[edit]

Completely implausible; graphemes are much more than just ligatures (and the target is not even about single ligatures but about titles spelt with them). Retargeting to {{R from symbol}} might be an option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L̥̄[edit]

As with #Ḹ below, an article with an explanation, such as ISO 15919, is probably more useful than an article listing a set of characters with no notes on usage (and even with circular redirects). 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ḹ[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Probably better to direct to an article explaining these symbols, such as International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration. Note also that Ḹ (Indic) and Ṝ (Indic) exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a bit biased as the creator of most of the (Indic) pages, but I think redirects to those pages are probably preferable to the transliteration standard, as applying that policy on a broader level will almost immediately run into problems when a character is used in more than one common transcription or transliteration standard. I feel like the 2010 RfD on these pages was tacitly acknowledging this problem when they came up with targeting the redirects at the diacritics. I feel like the only way out of the "exclusionary specific" redirect and the current "inclusive but unsatisfying" redirect is to actually get good information into the diacritics articles about the multiple uses of each of these characters - possibly converting templates like {{Letters with dot}} into a table of transliteration standards with links to the character articles instead of a simple list of letters with a diacritic. At least that way we can get the multitude of transcriptions, transliterations, and other uses out there, while also getting people redirected to pages like Ḹ (Indic) if that's what they are looking for. Or maybe this actually ends up as an argument that these should be a disambiguation page? VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 02:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I posted this to WikiProject Writing Systems to see if we can't get help putting together something more cogent than I can come up with. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 02:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kong references in King Kong (2005 film)[edit]

It seems this redirect might be refined to King Kong (2005 film)#References to original 1933 King Kong, but as the redirect is worded, it may be unclear what "Kong" is in regards to a search term, and the phrasing of the redirect is rather implausible. This reflect would probably be better deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine per nom. The redirect title has poor phrasing, but keep for attribution. Jay (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the nom is also suggesting deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High Princess (Stache)[edit]

Confusing/unclear redirect. It seems that a song with some sort of variation of this title (but not exactly this title) was intended to be on Artpop, but it looks like it didn't make the cut. Also, this redirect was at one point targeting Zedd (producer) which targets Zedd. It also seems the phrase "high princess" is nowhere on Wikipedia. Probably best to delete this vague/unclear redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Clarity (Zedd album)#Other songs. Apparently this refers to the Lady Gaga promotional version of Stache. However, my !vote is only weak as I'm not convinced that the parenthetical formatting of the redirect is plausible. eviolite (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Areo Magazine[edit]

This is an inappropriate redirect for the magazine (https://areomagazine.com/). It was established by Malhar Mali in 2016 and edited by him until 2018. The ~3 year editorship of Pluckrose does not warrant a redirect to Pluckrose, nor would it to its current editor (Iona Italia). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep given that the target mentions more about the magazine than Helen Pluckrose's role, and we have no other articles that mention this magazine, apart from the articles that are using magazine in the citations, which makes a search more confusing for the reader. There is Areopagitica but the mention there is trivial. Another option is to retarget to the Aero International magazine as an {{R from misspelling}}. In fact I first read this nomination as Aero Magazine! Jay (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation, if notable. Thec current target is not good enough for a redirect but would feature in a Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appleton, WI MSA[edit]

This redirect is wrong, as the Appleton MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) is not at all identical to Appleton city; the MSA is much bigger. Delete per reasons for deletion #2 Yellowcard (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need consensus for Appleton, Wisconsin metropolitan area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:18, 3 April 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the second per Paul. Also, isn't the first ambiguous? I see a GD Goenka School, Sarita Vihar in Madanpur Khadar Village, GD Goenka Signature School in SCJ World Academy, and GD Goenka Global School in Bethany Stahl. If there are schools other than Public schools, and they cannot be disambiguated, delete. Jay (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ecole Supérieure de Réalisation Audiovisuelle[edit]

Unclear how this is plausible when the "é" is replaced with an "Ã" and a copyright symbol. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Useless. BD2412 T 01:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleté per nom and BD2412. The É may appear as é on some older devices, but I'm not sure people would deliberately search using an é instead. Régards, SONIC678 05:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; we only seem to have single-character encoding errors in Category:Redirects from mojibake. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2[edit]

Londongrad[edit]

Target had been Russians in the United Kingdom, recently changed to target this new article. Term is related/mentioned in both; not sure which is a better target. MB 21:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects indicating "®" status[edit]

Wikipedia should not contain redirects that serve only to assert a brand owner's claim to trademark registration status. Notably, trademarks issue for a limited time, on a country-by-country basis. It is not Wikipedia's job to police the scope or currency of trademarks, and such titles are deceiving with respect to marks that are expired or unregistered in a given country. BD2412 T 19:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. If a company wants to defend their registered trademarks, they can't be allowed to use a non-profit to do so. We are not a web-hosting service. Before today I was not aware that any redirects used the circle R on Wikipedia. BD2412 makes a strong case these sorts of redirects are misleading. If there are any TMs, I'd hope these were discovered and deleted as well. BusterD (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BusterD: The limitations of the search function are such that it will only return good results for one special character at a time, so I started with "®"; "™" is next. BD2412 T 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Unencyclopedic. Literally nobody is typing in the registered trademark symbol to find out information on a company or product. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reaper Eternal: A search query may also be formed by copying and pasting a string of characters, not only by typing it. See my comment below. Edcolins (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Though MOS:TM doesn't explicitly mention trademarks, it should nonetheless be clear that we don't use them, and they certainly aren't useful in a redirect. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations..." per MOS:TMRULES. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GeneReviews® but Delete the others. GeneReviews® is used in several databases and automatically gets used by various tools like User:Citation bot, WP:Citoid, WP:VE, etc... It is marked as a typo, and will get picked up in typo reports, enabling cleanup. Going to ping @BD2412, BusterD, Reaper Eternal, and Ohnoitsjamie: to let them know of this corner case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb, GeneReviews® isn't part of this RFD. GeneReviews(®) is. Note the extra parentheses. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. Then... Delete all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. (@BD2412: Thanks for stealing my unspoken idea for this mass nomination.) 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of this nonsense. It is basically companies trying to worm promotion into Wikipedia by saying "Oh, we have registered trademark redirects on Wikipedia! Now we are truly in business! Take that, (company who does not have a registered trademark redirect on Wikipedia)!" — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 04:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely unlikely search terms - only used for external claims.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @BD2412: Which brand owners have created these redirects and are now using them to contest a trademark status? Invasive Spices (talk) 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I never said that brand owners have created these redirects, just that serve no other purpose than to assert trademark status. Who created them is irrelevant, though I note that of the tens of thousands of brands with Wikipedia articles, only a handful even have such redirects incoming (there is no Coca-Cola®, McDonald's®, Coors Light®, Atari®, Cadillac®, Rolex®, Best Western®, or Value City Furniture®, for example), and there should not be a precedent to make more. BD2412 T 21:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then there is no need to proceed. The scenario you have given – and upon which the above votes were based – is not occurring. It is also inconceivable. Redirects are commonly used for incorrect spellings and other incorrect names – that is one of the most frequent uses. The mark owners could as easily choose to interpret these as an assertion that their marks are unregistered and sue Wikipedia because we have redirected as if the register mark is incorrect. Neither is occurring. Really, deleting these would simply make WP mildly less useful to readers. Specifically in the case of Roundup Ready® there are a few pages which link to it. Invasive Spices (talk) 3 April 2022 (UTC)
        • If you are of the opinion that there is no need to proceed, then you are welcome to not proceed. BD2412 T 21:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No evidence has been provided that the legal consequences described are occurring. No evidence has been provided that any trademark owner has subverted Wikipedia in the manner described. This is not really occurring. Invasive Spices (talk) 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Likely search terms because a reader may copy and paste any of these terms to look it up in Wikipedia, perhaps even not knowing the meaning of the sign "®". Thus, the redirects seem to be useful regardless of the trademark status of the brands. I created the redirect "Roundup Ready®" back in 2007 and I believe I did so because there was a red link "Roundup Ready®" in the article "Plant breeders" (see the version preceding this edit) and because I most probably thought it was plausible that somebody would search for that term (there was indeed a red link). Needless to say, I had no and still have no affiliation whatsoever with the owner of the brand "Roundup Ready". I also concur with Invasive Spices that the narrative that these redirects "serve only to assert a brand owner's claim to trademark registration status" is not supported by any evidence. --Edcolins (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether that is the intent or not, that is the function of a trademark. Let me give you an example. Airhitch® is one of the nominated redirects, but the company is out of business, and the mark is dead (i.e., no longer a registered mark). To say "Airhitch®" is like saying "Betty White (living person)". It is no longer true. Like Betty White, all trademarks will eventually expire, and the "®" will become as erroneous as "(living person)" for a deceased person. Furthermore, unlike famous people, no one reports in the news that a trademark has expired, so in order to insure that we are not deceiving our readers, someone would need to check the trademark databases to insure that these marks are, in fact, living. That is not something that Wikipedia should be undertaking. BD2412 T 16:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I know, there is no requirement that a redirect be "true". If that was the case, all redirects containing a misspelling could be deleted, since they are "untrue" spellings. Likewise, we would have to delete the redirect "Swaziland" because the name of the country is now "Eswatini". If a reader comes across the string of characters "Airhitch®" in a book published in the 1990s (not knowing the meaning of the sign "®"), and copies and pastes it to look it up in Wikipedia, it is, I think, useful to redirect the reader to Airhitch, regardless of the status of the trademark. By doing so, we are not deceiving the reader, who will learn from the article "Airhitch" that the trademark likely expired. --Edcolins (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a difference between a redirect being "untrue" and a redirect being "misleading". An "®" symbol is a legal statement about current ownership of the word. So far as I am aware, a trademark user does not face legal jeopardy for intentionally misspelling a word, but a trademark user who intentionally incorrectly asserts that their mark is registered can indeed face legal penalties for so doing. BD2412 T 17:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          If you think there is a valid legal reason to delete these redirects, why not contacting the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team to put the matter to rest (Wikimedia Foundation's legal contact page)? Would the Wikimedia Foundation be liable for keeping these redirects? Is that the concern? I would be surprised if this was the case, but I am not qualified to answer this question. Edcolins (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What part of "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations..." is unclear? Ten years ago the language was identical. Fifteen years ago, the same language. We don't get to decide whether or not to follow style guidelines. We apply the guideline evenly across the pedia, or change the guideline. I'm not sensing any great movement towards changing it. BusterD (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BusterD: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations..." is clear and I agree there is no need to change it. However, "[r]edirects are not articles" (see e.g. in Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, "This page in a nutshell: Redirects are not articles ...") so that the guideline you cite ("... in either article text or citations ...") is not applicable to redirects. Edcolins (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your certainty, but it seems this discussion is being held precisely to decide your claim of inapplicability. The concept of applying the MOS to all namespace except redirects seems unsupportable. For the purpose of categorization, redirects are NOT articles. This makes sense; I think we can all agree on this. Perhaps for the purpose of naming, they ARE. Perhaps after this discussion concludes we may finally adjust that 16 year-old wording... BusterD (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, BusterD. The MOS applies to all English Wikipedia articles (according to the first sentence of WP:MOS), and "[p]ages in mainspace that are not usually considered articles-proper" include redirects (see WP:ARTICLESPACE, towards the end of the section). Thus, the MOS is not really helpful here, IMHO. That was my point. Edcolins (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your collegiality. Boldly disagreeing with friends is the way wikipedians keep from arguing. I apologize if my question seemed dismissive. BusterD (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as said well above, the guidelines have been clear on this for the many years I have worked on Wikipedia. The searches should work fine without the commercial copyright or trademark symbols. W Nowicki (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St helens[edit]

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

Genital sex[edit]

Retarget to Sexual characteristics. No incoming mainspace links, nor mentioned at current target. Could plausibly refer to the act of sexual intercourse (cf. oral-genital sex), but I'm not seeing many RSes use it as such. Omitting certain partial matches, top Google Scholar results mostly relate to sex differentiation via external genitals. Disambiguation is another option. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC) edited 23:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Speedy rename[edit]

I'm not sure if "Categories for discussion/Speedy" is a good redirect target for "Speedy rename" as normal page moves are also often called page rename. + WP:Rename redirects to Wikipedia:Changing username, with a hatnote "WP:RENAME" redirects here. For renaming an article, see Wikipedia:Moving a page. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 07:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Speedy renaming is a particular type of page move that, as far as I know, only applies to categories listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. It refers to the process. Ordinary page moves and discussions at forums such as this are not speedy. A normal page move may be fast but it's unlikely that anyone would stumble across this redirect while looking for info about normal page moves. This redirect is unlikely to cause any confusion. MClay1 (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like WP:RM/TR can be seen as a form of "Speedy rename". When it doesn't satisfy the criteria, it gets deferred as a "not speedy" WP:RM. Any way we can check what page users visit, after they used this redirect? ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there's also WP:RMTR which is also referred to as a speedy rename;; and file renames are either speedy through Template:Rename media or something that is handled irregularly at FFD -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep None of the alternative processes are really refereed to as "speedy renam[ing]"; they are instead based on implausible guesswork. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • RMTR is speedy rename, and Wikipedia editors call it that. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bundled WP:Speedy renaming. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (drafted) at WP:Speedy rename per IP65 (although, to avoid bikeshedding, I'd also be fine with locating the DAB at WP:Speedy renaming). This search shows significant usage in the pagemove context, either regarding RM/TR or regarding regular RMs that closed before the seven-day mark. I know I've used "speedy move" as a result when closing RfDs that should have been RM/TRs, and "move" and "rename" are really interchangeable in that context: For instance, {{Move}} and {{Rename}} redirect to the same place. For good measure I've added a link to WP:CHU/S to the draft—if that were the only ambiguity it wouldn't be worth DABbing, but if we're going to have a DAB, that seems a plausible enough usage to warrant inclusion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:April Fools' Day[edit]

This redirect is created last April Fools'. Since the April Fools' Day page has never existed as a Draft, the redirect should be deleted for its implausibility. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess? I dunno. Doesn't really seem worth doing anything about, but since we're here, sure. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Convert it into a {{workpage}} for April Fool's vandalism, which could be indicated next year with a header banner on the article page -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diuranium[edit]

The species U2 is mentioned at Quintuple bond and Phi bond, but not Uranium. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to defer to search results (and bring up the Wiktionary entry). No single best target. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a mention to Uranium#Compounds -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Diuranium itself is hypothetical but "Diuranium" is mentioned in the article 3 times in the context of compounds. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not let users see search results for these compounds, rather than unhelpfully just sending them to the big article about the element and making them find instances of "diuranium" in that article? As you say, they could also be seeking content on the hypothetical bonding described at Quintuple bond. If there were a specific section at Uranium to target that covers all possible meansing of "diuranium", I'd feel differently, but there isn't. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 26 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! 05:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearstor(e)y[edit]

Unlikely place for someone to type parentheses when looking for the target article; they are either search for Clearstory or Clearstorey, not this. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree: Yes, it is not likely, and as both Clearstory and Clearstorey exist as redirects, people will find the page. LynwoodF (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term given the alternate spellings. Used in reliable sources, for example [3]. No benefit from deletion. Someone searching this will be taken to exactly what they were looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2 -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Mega[edit]

La Mega is used for La Mega Media, and also a Radio Station goes by la mega, WOXY.and the 97.9 version on the Pacific Coast KXOL-FM also uses La Mega just like WSKQ,yet we are only letting WSKQ use it. I’d propose making it into an disambiguation.Danubeball (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget "La Mega" (Spanish and French: The Mega) to Mega and add entries there -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think we should do that. The Mega doesn’t redirect to Mega,so why should La Mega redirect to mega?Wikipedia:THE discusses it further. Danubeball (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the disambiguation page Who (disambiguation) which includes an entry for The Who, so disambiguation pages can support having entries which use the definite article, and plural forms, and plural forms with definite article attached, and alternate capitalizations, like allcaps (such as the entry for World Health Organization (WHO), and variant punctuation, like the entries for "Who?" Also WP:THE doesn't mention redirects nor disambiguation pages. As for why The Mega doesn't exist, if there's no need for it to exist, then it wouldn't exist. No current entry at Mega are called "The Mega" per WP:THE, so there's no redirect. If there were entries that had that construction, then a redirect would exist. Since I am suggesting that we add "La Mega" items to Mega, the redirect would therefore be supported, with the uses found that are "La Mega" terms as additional entries. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time though,there are seperate pages for stuff like The Voice and The Wolf.Now I realize that we need to do something about the fact that while some have separate disambiguations, Others don’t. Danubeball (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guiding principle should be size. If the dab page gets too large to easily read/navigate, then split it off with "The X" off of "X"; or vice versa. If there are few entries, then "The X" or "X" doesn't need to be separate from the other one. After all, people outside of Wikipedia will attach or remove definite articles willy-nilly, and search for things that way. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per Sammi Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per the above; there are enough uses isolated to this phrase. BD2412 T 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 1[edit]

Bbc1[edit]

Honestly, i think the target article of "Bbc1" (only B in uppercase) as 60S ribosomal protein L13 feels inaccurate due to all internet search typed to "Bbc1" saw nearly all of the results unrelated to the protein. This redirect should be deleted, or retargeted to correct article. 180.254.169.147 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the term is disambiguated with a hatnote pointing to bbc1 (disambiguation). Paradoctor (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, per nom, BBC1 is far more notable, can create Bbc1 (protein) as a redirect to replace it Indagate (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paradoctor and WP:DIFFCAPS; everything at the dab page is written in capitals, where as this is the sole non-capitalised usage. Correct capitalisation should take priority over miscapitalisation. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify. I could reasonably see someone typing in "Bbc1" and looking for the channel just as much as I could see them looking for the protein. Rather than having to hatnote the page about the protein to a page on BBC One (or vice-versa, which would be significantly odder), it makes sense to dabify when there is no primary topic. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget unless clearly disambiguated BBC One is clear primary redirect, regardless of miscapitalisation or not. It then can created Bbc1 (protein) as redirect replacement. Another option would be DABify in case of no primary topic. 202.67.42.39 (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS: having different targets for bbc1 and BBC1 is perfectly fine. It might be worth discussing the best title for bbc1 (disambiguation), but that's a conversation for another place. - Eureka Lott 13:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eureka Lott. A WP:RM discussion could consider whether there is no primary topic for the lowercase (i.e., consider moving the Bbc1 (disambiguation) to Bbc1). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic and islamic philosophy[edit]

Non-Islamic Arab philosophy includes Christian and non-Abrahamic sources, so reducing it to Judeo-Islamic overlap 800-1400 doesn't seem appropriate. Based on Google scholar search results, "Arabic and Islamic philosophy" appears to be a term of art to refer to the philosophical tradition created by Al-Kindi, which we cover as Islamic philosophy. Thus, either deleting this redirect or pointing it to Islamic philosophy seem feasible. I considered Middle Eastern philosophy, but it provides no information on Arab philosophy other than Islamic philosophy and is a rather poorly written grab bag article that would not help a reader searching for this term. signed, Rosguill talk 23:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Islamic philosophy says Islamic philosophy refers to philosophy produced in an Islamic society. Because it is not necessarily concerned with religious issues, nor exclusively produced by Muslims,[3] many scholars prefer the term "Arabic philosophy."[4], which frames the two as synonyms. The redirect, OTOH, implies that the two are distinct concepts, contradicting the sources cited.
The current target only discusses the interaction between Jewish and Arab philosophy, a subtopic of the redirect.
Conversely, Middle Eastern philosophy is a supertopic of the redirect, casting too wide a net.
Unless there is some place that discusses (based on sources) the distinction the redirect implies, it has nowhere to go, therefore needs to go. Paradoctor (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor all articles, or delete the redirect I'll review the articles in the coming weeks. The lede for Judeo-Islamic philosophies (800–1400) could also be more inclusive. Perhaps this could be renamed "Arab-Judeo philosophies" to credit the precedence of Al-Kindi, since there is already an article on Jewish philosophy
Also according to the Islamic philosophy article: "Islamic philosophy refers to philosophy produced in an Islamic society. Because it is not necessarily concerned with religious issues, nor exclusively produced by Muslims, many scholars prefer the term "Arabic philosophy." (2 citations given)
And I'll stipulate to this opinion, which makes it a candidate for renaming as well, or merging.
If we don´t get a consensus, I recommend deletion over changing the redirect, and for the same reason you adduce for changing it: inappropriate reduction of scope. Jaredscribe (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just submitted a WP:BOLD rewrite of the lede to Judeo-Islamic philosophies (800–1400), which i myself had written a few months ago, to credit the precedence of Arabic philosophy. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When Paradoctor wrote, I was in edit mode and didn´t see his opinion till afterward: significant that we independently of each other quoted the proposal for renaming that was already given in Islamic philosophy article.

No earlier than[edit]

This redirects to a section of a disambiguation page that does not even mention the subject; nor does it explain why it redirects to that section. I would much rather have a separate article about this subject to explain its usage in science, than have a confusing redirect to an abbreviation that explains nothing. Renerpho (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Energy[edit]

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

Monomer(s)[edit]

Don't see how this redirect is helpful/plausible. Someone is going to type either Misnomer or Misnomers to arrive at the article, not parentheses. Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as useful in links. Looks like only 1 mainspace link, but clearly someone finds it useful, and it is correctly targeted. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdewman6: I have gone and fixed that typo. Now, nothing points there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As unlikely redirect. Monomers is sufficient for the plural form. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep WP:RCHEAP per Mdewman6 -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a reasonable link target or search target. Like Steel said, someone is either going to type "monomer" or "monomers".--Srleffler (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Parenthetical plurals are quite common, used when a statement can refer to one or more of the noun in question, and here someone has created a redirect instead of using a piped link. The incoming link was not "a typo", in fact Zxcvbnm simply changed it to a piped link with the same displayed text. Redirects are not only search terms and I am not sure what is meant by "unlikely redirect". It is harmless, unambiguous, and potentially useful, and we do not delete redirects meeting those criteria. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:20, 28 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 20:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We gain nothing from deleting, and possibly harm someone's reading experience. Paradoctor (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SF author[edit]

SF is a disambiguation page, and there are some subjects listed there that could reasonable have an author associated with them in one way or another. For this reason, deletion may be the best option here to allow search results to provide more assistance to readers instead of pigeonholing them by directing them to a specific page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "SF" is a widely-used abbreviation for science fiction, particularly written science fiction. Unless someone can show significant usage of "SF author" to mean anything other than "science fiction author" (which takes up the first page of Google results), keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the term is not "SF" it is "SF author", Showing that "SF" means many things does not show that "SF author" is the same -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Primary topic for this combination and a natural search target. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of San Francisco Bay Area writers. SF is known more as San Francisco over science fiction. -- Tavix (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a global view. xD Paradoctor (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It sure is! -- Tavix (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    🙇 Paradoctor (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay, the outlier I couldn't find with an existing article! I was hoping one existed ... and obviously failed to find this one. 😅 Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "SF" may refer to San Francisco more often than to science fiction in general, but beside the word "author" I'd be shocked if that's the case. @Tavix: Can you point to usage of "SF author" to mean "author from San Francisco", on a level comparable to its usage to mean "author of science fiction"? I see that it's occasionally used that way in headlinese, e.g. [4], but authors from San Francisco aren't widely referred to as "SF authors" in the same way that science fiction authors are [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. (Which sense was intended here? We may never know.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (drafted at Draft:SF author). "San Francisco author" and broad-sense SF "speculative fiction author" combined seem sufficient to displace narrow-sense SF "science fiction author" from WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT status. Google News has plenty of hits meaning "San Francisco author", but not enough to make List of San Francisco Bay Area writers the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT either. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ars arcana[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. In addition, third party searches return results for either a book/publication or a band. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magical objects in Stardust[edit]

No such list in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target does mention a magic candle, and a magic substance. If that is unsatisfactory, then restore the unsourced article that was blanked and redirected and send to AfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Okay, I'm contradicting myself responding to this, but I have some thoughts.) Keeping the redirect in its current form is misleading due to the lack of a section or actual list for readers to arrive at; having "magical objects" sprinkled around the article in almost random places leaves it so readers searching for this term may be unsatisfied and confused with them arriving at the target article with no direct context. In addition, it is questionable if the target article's subject has a level of notability where a standalone list of subtopics would be helpful to our readers without it seeming to go into almost WP:NOTFANDOM territory due to lack of notability of any part of the target subject other than the target subject itself. For these reasons, I see a "WP:BLAR-then-WP:AFD" reversal in this case to be a waste of community time due to the result seeming clear; if any option may be plausible here, it would be to create a dedicated section in the target article, put some not all of the information there, retarget this redirect to that section, and then call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 1 April 2022‎
If it were List of magical objects in Stardust, I'd agree. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wandlore (Harry Potter)[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. In addition, the title hints that an article or redirect named Wandlore exists, and it doesn't. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The redirect is fully-protected; at this moment, there is no RFD tag on the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (once deprotected and tagged for RfD for the requisite 7 days). This was brought to AfD where the close was to delete the page, but instead there was an attempt at a soft redirect to the harry potter wiki, which at some point became a mainspace redirect. Since the redirect is inappropriate and there was past consensus to delete the page, follow through with past consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or G6 it. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OBHWF[edit]

I discovered why this redirects here, but am unsure its utility. Apparently, the acronym stands for "One Big Happy Weasley Family", but it seems like non-canon term made-up by fans. Due to this, I'm not certain if this redirect helps in its utility by existing, especially to the lack of the mention of the acronym or the acronym's meaning in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely search term. Natg 19 (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't remember why I created this anyway. Marnanel (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Congress of the United States of America[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. However, the subject does seem to be connected to Wizarding World on some way, but apparently primarily with subjects associated with the "Fantastic Beasts" subjects. I'm not sure if deletion is the best move here, but I'm also not finding a specific title to retarget this which would best benefit readers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is related to the Fantastic Beasts series, as it is the "magical government" of the USA. This organization has a specific role in the first film, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) (which takes place in New York City), so I would propose a retarget to there. Natg 19 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scarhead[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Third party search results for this term are split between fans of the Harry Potter series and various other subjects completely unrelated to the Harry Potter series. Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not at all a common search term. —El Millo (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter's[edit]

This redirect displays a form of ownership. (Over the years, redirects such as this one [with an 's at the end of the title] have been discussed at RFD and I believe more times than not, consensus has been to delete. Unfortunately, I cannot find any examples at the moment, so I can't provide any examples.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neodop was not pinged properly above. @Neodop: doing it now. Jay (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three Powers Agreement[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, internet and Google Scholar searches suggest that this phrase has been used to refer to myriad different three-way pacts historically, and often informally, making it a poor candidate for disambiguation. Delete unless a justification can be provided . signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SHSEE[edit]

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

Furious Love[edit]

Delete, as the redirect might cause confusion (Furious Love is the name of one of the band's songs, which isn't immediately recognizable from the redirect and thus makes one confused about why they are on this band's page). Furthermore, there are no pages that link to Furious Love and no notable revision history on Furious Love to be preserved. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine target to Veridia#Furious Love I added the anchor, I trust that will prevent any potential confusion? That no pages link to the redirect is not relevant, other places on the web might use the redirect. My personal wiki has hundreds of links to Wikipedia, many of them to redirects. Paradoctor (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to solve this. I am personally satisfied. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume that we can close as resolved, then. Absent some ambiguity, it is standard practice to redirect song titles to the album containing the song. BD2412 T 16:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paradoctor and BD2412: This can be closed as resolved as far as I am concerned. Is that something that I need to do? Reading the "closing instructions" wasn't very clear to me. Also, should it be an anchor link to the song in the band's discography section (Veridia#Furious Love) or a link directly to the EP that the song is on (Inseparable (EP))? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not required to do anything here. If the closing instructions are not clear to you, it's probably best to simply wait for someone else to close the discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Retarget to Inseparable (EP). --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Inseparable (EP) as an {{R from song}}. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mersenne safe prime[edit]

I really don't know why Mersenne safe prime needs to be redirected to 7 instead of Mersenne prime. Pavlov2 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Schreiner[edit]

The page was first redirected to Only Love (Shaggy song) initially, then changed to Saturday Sun (Vance Joy song). Neither of these pages offer any information about the target Luca Schreiner. At this point, as none of those pages offer any further information about the subject substantial information other than a mention of a remix he produced, the redirect does not serve a proper purpose especially as there are multiple targets where the page could be redirected to. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as impeding search. There are about two dozen mentions of various remixes by German DJ Luca Schreiner on Wikipedia. There may be a bio article in the future, but not yet.
Neither of these pages offer any information about the target That is false. Both articles mention a remix version of their subject by Schreiner. Paradoctor (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paradoctor allow me to rephrase that, neither target offered substantial information other than a mention of a remix he produced this no obvious target for the redirect. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contratista[edit]

Spanish for "contractor". Not relevant to any of the entries at the current target. There is a 2018 Mexican film El Contratista, but it is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Paradoctor (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RLOTE. Bonoahx (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDELETE #8: 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.—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TDEE[edit]

"TDEE" is not mentioned in the redirect target except as the title of an external link. The external link goes to a calculator for "Total Daily Energy Expenditure", which is not the same thing as the basal metabolic rate. I'm not really sure where to retarget this or if it should be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Richard-of-Earth: you say that readers are most likely wanting Basal metabolic rate, yet you want to retarget to a different page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homestar Runner Wiki[edit]

Not mentioned at target apart from a reference and an external link; someone searching for a fandom wiki will not be helped by the article about its topic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, seems to be an external wiki so doesn't make sense to have a redirect within Wikipedia. Bonoahx (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This came up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 10 § Hrwiki, coincidentally mentioned in the April Fools section below. Part of the reason that was retargeted is that there's no relevant content at the target, so I agree that there should not be a redirect from this title. However, there was encyclopedic content at this title until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homestar Runner Wiki (2) in July 2006, which resolved to merge it to the current target. The merged content seems to have then been removed in February 2009. That means three years' worth of revisions that would no longer meet the license requirements of CC-BY-SA (You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor) and would thus be copyright violations. So either this should be moved without redirect to something like Talk:Homestar Runner/attribution/Homestar Runner Wiki with a relevant note added to the talkpage and/or article history, or deleted, with the 98 names at [11] added into the article's history by dummy edit (if desired, discounting bots and those whose only contributions were below the threshold of originality). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urectum[edit]

Not described at target; however, wikt:Urectum exists on Wiktionary. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special military operation[edit]

Should this really redirect here?

The term is only ever used in reference to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, I think 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is better here than an article which rather ironically is mostly talking about a NATO term.

It's worth noting that Special military operation in Ukraine redirects to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, so this would be consistent. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the expression is too general to refer to the Russian operation; the expression will likely gain its "generalness" back once a few months have passed. Veverve (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you do a books search, you'll find that there are a number of uses of the phrase pre-2022, so that argues for 'keep'. But if you look on Wikipedia now, you'll find that 37 of 39 uses of the phrase are to the current ongoing event, and the history of the link shows it was created with the current event in mind, so that argues for 'retarget'. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Veverve and the WP:Ten year test. A Google Scholar search for "special military operations" in quotation marks finds many pre-2022 results. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superman films on television[edit]

Not clear what redirect is for Indagate (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter censorship[edit]

The word "censorship" is nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is supposed to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was an article from 2003 to 2006 (final version). Religious debates over the Harry Potter series discusses the same topic, mentioning at least four events from the list, and most if not all censorship of Harry Potter has been on religious grounds, so I support a retarget there. If there's no consensus for a new target, this should be restored and sent to AfD, as its content pre-redirection was neither speedyable nor SNOWable. (Sidenote, I've un-redirected the talkpage, which contains some discussion and a note from the BLARing editor.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Religious debates over the Harry Potter series per Tamzin. Otherwise, restore article and send to AfD if desired. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Bus Rapid Transit[edit]

Unlikely redirect, and not the only BRT project in the city Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, San Francisco Bus Rapud Transit should be turned into a disambiguation page.Caleb M1 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CBU[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Extremely obscure shortcut, even at the time it was discussed back in 2006 it was already a long-deprecated abbreviation for a long-deprecated term. WhatLinksHere shows it's entirely unused, and having random 3 letter redirects is an active hindrance to anyone searching for the correct projectspace page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:FOOLS

Uranus[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy keep per WP:FOOLS

Hoax (song)[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete G3. Obvious hoaxes, people

WP:AN/I[edit]

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

Recursion[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: {{subst:rfd top|{{subst:rfd top|{{subst:rfd top|{{subst:rfd top|{{subst:rfd top|{{subst:rfd top|{{subst:rfd top|{{subst:rfd top|{{subst:rfd top|{{subst:rfd top|...}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Declaration of war on CfD[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: for us to start a Wikipedians' cat association

WP:TNT[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: TNT this whole entire RfD about TNT, and ping TNT for some added TNT

Hammer time[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: stop
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.</noinclude>

March 31[edit]

White v. Samsung[edit]

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

Sabji[edit]

The target is a section of a disambiguation page with 3 entries, 2 of which are Iranian dishes, with the spelling variant sabzi, and are partial title matches. Note that sabzi is the Persian word for herbs.

The other entry in the DAB that has the bluelink Indian cuisine says that sabzi or sabji is a vegetable cooked in gravy, however Indian cuisine doesn't have a mention of sabji but has mentions of some states using the word sabzi as a generic food menu item.

I would have preferred a standalone article, but if that is not happening, what would a better target be? The previous target was Curry which had no mention of sabji (or sabzi). Moreover, curry can refer to non-vegetarian dishes, whereas sabji would be vegetable-based. Jay (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a fallout of the ongoing WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 28#Shabji. Jay (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond films on television[edit]

Delete as not clear what it should lead to, doesn't seem to make sense as page title Indagate (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AfD. Looks like this was PRODed, dePRODed, and then BLARed. Send to AfD to properly consider it's best disposition. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and AfD per Mdewman6. Not a suitable redirect but can't be deleted here. A7V2 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to WP:AFD per Mdewman6's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De Gebroeders Ko[edit]

Incorrect name of band. No links from "De Gebroeders Ko". Eurohunter (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, commonly used with "De" (i.e. "the") in front of the name, e.g. [12]. Fram (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Fram. "de" is the definite article in Dutch (analogous to "the"), so my understanding is that this is analogous to English "Brothers Grimm" vs "The Brothers Grimm" (the latter of which is a redirect to the former). Indeed, nl:Gebroeders Ko starts with "De Gebroeders Ko zijn..." eviolite (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Fram and Jay. Especially as they have a non-English name it's not at all unlikely someone might think "De" is part of their name if they saw it written somewhere like that. A lack of links is never a reason to delete a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from move}}, target was at this name for years until the nom's bold move. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Britain[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, and doesn't seem to be the correct name for the subject of the redirect either. Most third party sources which refer to this subject name it "Wizarding Britain". In addition, third party search engines looking up the term "Magical Britain" seem to instead return results regarding fictional maps of Britain where locations and creature from folklore, such as the Loch Ness Monster, can be located. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment/update: Seems as though the redirect has a connection to Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality; the subject is fanfiction though, so I don't believe it would be helpful to retarget the nominated redirect to any article that is canon, but I'm also not sure if it's worth not deleting the redirect per my original nomination rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator comment: delete. I would have thought it was called that in the original books - apparently I did - but yeah, the fanfic isn't a worthwhile redirect - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Creator is fine with deletion as well. --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter mysteries[edit]

The target is unclear what "mysteries" is meant to refer, meaning readers searching this term will not find what they are looking to find. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. Closest match that I got is Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery which is a partial title match at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There was some content at this page that was blanked and redirected. Normally I would advocate for sending to AfD, but in this case I will invoke WP:SNOWBALL in that it has no chance at being kept or merged elsewhere after an AfD, and if there is no appropriate redirect target given its vagueness, then deletion is the only remaining option. I could see an article being developed at this title, but if that were ever to occur, WP:TNT would apply to the existing content. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter trivia[edit]

There is no trivia section in the article, and there shouldn't be per WP:TRIVIA. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, seemingly refers to nonexistent section of article. eviolite (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there was a trivia section in the article that was WP:SPLIT back in 2005 with the split page later blanked and redirected. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter Further Reading[edit]

Unclear what "Further Reading" is meant to refer. Due to this reason, the redirect is potentially a circular reference to its target article's subject, and is thus unhelpful in its current form. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter : movies[edit]

Delete per WP:COSTLY. The location of the colon is implausible, especially considering the target page has a list of similar redirects that do not contain such implausibility. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

50 Greatest Harry Potter Moments[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, thus not being clear what this redirect is meant to refer. (Also, per the redirect's edit history, looks as though the page was an article that was redirected a few days after it was created in 2011.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sounds like one of those clickbait articles --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should never have been redirected to Harry Potter (film series). It was the actual title of a TV special (according to the article which was BLARed). Definitely doesn't seem to be notable, but I'm not sure if this should be deleted or restored and AfD. A7V2 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lenticel. This is Wikipedia, not TheTopTens, WatchMojo, or any of that stuff, and besides, people's opinions vary on what Harry Potter (book, movie, or otherwise) moments are "the greatest." Regards, SONIC678 00:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and AFD per A7V2's WP:BLAR finding -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD to determine whether the tv special is notable and/or whether any content should be merged into an extant Harry Potter article. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potter films[edit]

Ambiguous title. Could also be reasonably user for other searches, such as films about the pottery profession or a list of films with an actor/actress with the surname such as the actress Monica Potter. In addition, Potter is a disambiguation page. Best to delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry potter subjects[edit]

The redirect is unclear what the term "subjects" is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, Ron and Hermione[edit]

Delete per WP:XY. The three subjects of this redirect (Harry Potter (character), Ron Weasley, and Hermoine Granger) are distinct subjects with their own articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dot and Dash[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. Could also refer to a set of toys made by Wonder Workshop, but not sure if it's worth redirecting there either. Probably best to delete to let search results provide the most assistance to readers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. My Google search shows a mix of jewelry, Morse code and robots hits. --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yog sothoth (geometry)[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

These are redirects from the names of Cthulhu Mythos deities to star polyhedra. These names were given (apparently arbitrarily) to these polyhedra the amateur polyhedron enthusiast George Olshevsky, who himself had a Wikipedia page that was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Olshevsky. I can't find any evidence that anyone except George ever used these names. These qualify as "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", and probably as confusing and/or nonsensical as well. They should be deleted. Apocheir (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have tagged all of these redirects and notified their targets and the redirects' creator. Also, Shub-niggurath (geometry) has been nominated in the past: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 22#Shub-niggurath (geometry). Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I got pulled away in the middle of making this RfD. The RfD from 2013 is confusing and/or confused: the names aren't "outdated", they were never in common use to start with.
    Another point is that only one of these names actually appears on the linked page: Great retrosnub icosidodecahedron mentions the name "Azathoth". It's not referenced, though. Apocheir (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I was brought here by request of the nominator on my talk page, for what it's worth. These fail WP:NOTNEO: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted". I couldn't find anything in Google Scholar (a pretty wide net for scholarly work) mentioning this nomenclature. In addition, except for "Azathoth", these fail WP:R#PLA in that they are unmentioned in their articles (and including Azathoth, should be unmentioned as apparently they cannot be reliably sourced). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Stalins's religious views[edit]

The section which this redirect targets doesn't exist. Upon reviewing the target page, there the word "religion" occurs once, and it's location doesn't seem to contain enough distinct information to rationalize the existence of this redirect; in other words, readers looking up this term are not going to find the information they are trying to find. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay(actor)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB. The target page utilizes the version of the title with the proper spacing. (Also, all main space links to this redirect were bypassed a couple of days ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Shekharappa Gyanagoudar[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a due mention is readded. signed, Rosguill talk 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to be an Indian student that died during the shelling of Kharkiv. While tragic, I don't think his death requires inclusion in the wiki per WP:BIO1E. Outside of Wiki rules, I think keeping this redirect without context is a disservice to his grieving family. --Lenticel (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Soap Awards won by Eastenders[edit]

Not a plausible search term and does not benefit readers. (Side note: the title has a miscapitalisation). – DarkGlow • 14:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakish keep. This term doesn't get as many pageviews these days, but it's unambiguous and can help people get to their destination. Plus, per Eastenders, that's also a perfectly plausible capitalization. Regards, SONIC678 00:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin J. Tremba[edit]

No indication of notability. Not mentioned in redirect target. Very problematic unsourced category inclusion Unbh (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can tell, this person is not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Therefore delete. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Monobook[edit]

Wikipedia:Monobook & Wikipedia:Minerva are both redirects dedicated to Wikipedia skins, though they redirect to completely different targets, the first one goes to WP:Skin, the latter to MW:Skin:Minerva Neue. They should target to same/similar page. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 12:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarocchi Marvel[edit]

Delete. This appears to be a brand of divination tarot deck that it not mentioned anywhere at the target article which, in any case, is mainly about the primary use of Tarot cards for playing games. There are hundreds of such divination decks on the market and it makes no sense to create redirects for them to a generic article. If they are notable, they should have articles created in their own right as has been done for others. Bermicourt (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems to be a Marvel themed Tarot deck that might have a potential article in the future. I also can't find a good target here in en.wiki as several Marvel themed card games have their own standalone article. --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Revolution (book)[edit]

The title is ambiguous with Our Revolution (Trotsky book). There are currently no direct links to the redirect in mainspace. As there is no disambiguation page to redirect to (nor is there a need for one, given that these are the only two books by that title and this is not a likely search term), the redirect should be deleted. Graham (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an R from move, so really shouldn't be deleted, to keep external links intact. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlandic Dannebrog[edit]

Doesn't make sense. Dannebrog is specifically the word for the red-white-Nordic-cross flag of Denmark (not flags in general), so "Greenlandic Dannebrog" is meaningless ("Greenlandic [Danish flag]"?). It's almost like an WP:XY situation. In any case, there are no results of this phrase anywhere on the Internet so delete. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you say it, yea delete it Kxeon (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 30[edit]

Smart Sockets[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search suggests that this is not a brand name uniquely associated with the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The brand name is SmartSockets without a space, and is mentioned at the target (they acquired it) and which I redirected to the same place. I don't recall why I also did the variant with the space - it was fifteen years ago - but I was going through red link lists at the time so I suspect it was on one of those. Gurch (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest summit[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

I already nominated this one year ago but it just doesn't make sense that this redirect exists. Bucharest is the capital of a country, not some irrelevant city. It's obvious that more meetings have occurred there, so this redirect is unjustified. At Bucharest Nine you can see how many summits of that organization alone have ocurred in the city. Super Ψ Dro 11:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'hood[edit]

I think these both point to the wrong place. The only thing at the Hood DAB referred to as "'hood" is a neighborhood. The only thing there referred to as "'Hood", at least when using sentence case (and often even in title case) is 'Hood (film). Thus retarget 'hood to Neighborhood and move 'Hood (film) to 'Hood, with hatnotes both ways. But I think reasonable cases could also be made for pointing both to the DAB or pointing both to Neighborhood. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baksı[edit]

Baksı is the Turkish word (see tr:Baksı) for bakshy. As that's an obviously more precise target than the current one, I was going to boldly retarget there, but I noticed that the bakshy article doesn't mention Turkey at all, and, while there's certainly a cultural connection between these two Turkic countries, I'm not sure that's enough of an affinity to justify an RLOTE. Baksı Museum, however, does spell it that way, so I lean toward retargeting there with hatnote back to Bakshy and the DAB at Bakshi; doing it in the opposite direction would be reasonable too.

I'm bundling Baksi, created by Eubot as an avoided double redirect, because its fate can't be disentangled from Baksı's. Since its creation, the article Baksi (surname) has been created. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, I think the best approach would be to move Baksi (surname) over the redirect and disambiguate as needed via hatnote. As a second choice, I would support matching wherever Baksı winds up pointing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Tanasi[edit]

While the Cherokee town of Tanasi is the etymological namesake of the state of Tennessee, the state flag was only developed much later and was never used by Tanasi. Deletion seems appropriate, as there is no indication that Tanasi ever had a flag. signed, Rosguill talk 17:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i wasnt even aiming to say that tanasi town had a flag but ok Kxeon (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clean team[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, nothing illuminating came up in an internet search, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a link to the definition and how it relates to VDRs, though I appreciate this is not referred to in the article: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=42ed02a6-2f19-4271-aa93-6f940d25367c (also, that page requests registration after a single view) — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 18:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris FTV-5[edit]

Not mentioned at the targets, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The FTV-3 was a repurposed X-17 to test technology for the development of the UGM-27 Polaris missile. I can't find a great source to cite for that, but it could be added to the X-17 page. @Neopeius: Help?
  • The FTV-5 was also used to test technology for the Polaris missile. It used the same first stage rocket as the X-17, an MGM-29 Sergeant missile, to test a second stage rocket (the Polaris FTV-4, aka 10KS2500). I don't know if it was also an X-17 that was modified to remove the upper stages and attach the FTV-4, or if was a MGM-29 missile that was modified to have a second stage, but it's the same engine either way. Perhaps redirecting to the X-17 is better than the MGM-29, but misleading without explanation. Creating a new page for the FTV-5 is probably the best solution. --Sotakarhu (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sotakarhu Beyond my ken at the moment, sorry! --Neopeius (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Court[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Civil court, which retargeted Civil court to Civil law. This is just the capitalized version and should probably redirect to the same place. eviolite (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retargetper nom consistent with Civil court. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as nom of previous RfD. Sorry for overlooking this one. (Personally for this kind of thing I just boldly retarget with a summary like "Mirroring outcome of <RfD link>".) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget seems to be the best course of action. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strictly speaking, we should have an article on this subject. BD2412 T 22:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender critical[edit]

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

Function(mathematics)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB. The properly-spaced title is the redirect's target page. Steel1943 (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Foster[edit]

I redirected this to the Bill Foster DAB today but it was reverted by User:162 etc. because of the RMs, see Talk:Willie Foster (gridiron football). There was a clear consensus that the gridiron footballer wasn't primary but not that the baseball was primary. I suggest redirecting to the DAB. The 1st Google result is for Little Willy Foster. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep current primary redirect. There was indeed a long discussion about this at the above-linked RM, which identified that there are three possible targets for "Willie Foster":
  • I'm not aware of anybody else at Bill Foster or William Foster who is commonly known as "Willie Foster". Of these three then, we should ask if there is a primary topic. Based on pageviews [18] and long-term notability, it's clear that that is Bill Foster (baseball). The existing redirect and hatnotes should stay as-is. 162 etc. (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that neither Bill Foster nor Little Willy Foster is primarily referred to as "Willie", and that we do meanwhile have an article on someone who does primarily go by that name, even if they're much less notable, I think it's hard to say there's a clear primary topic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin makes a good point. Redirect to DAB. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space ethics[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: article created

-2 (number)[edit]

This redirect was tagged with a speedy deletion tag with no valid criteria offered. So I untagged it but I also question the usefulness of this redirect so I thought I'd send it to RFD for evaluation, if you can see a reason for its presence on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no mention of minus/negative 2 at target. WP:RFD#DELETE number 10 may apply also. A7V2 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Along with the evidence above, there is probably no reason why the page was created in the first place. WikiMic talk 02:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A dab −2 exists and might be the best target, but deletion seems a better option. -1 (number) correctly redirects to −1; -3 (number) redirects to 3 (why?); other -n (number) titles are redlinks. See also a recent RfD for −3…−10. Certes (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why this redirect wasn't included in that RFD discussion but maybe the addition of "(number)" made it less visible to the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled -3 (number) and relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Now that these are bundled, it seems clear to me both should be deleted given the consensus from the past RfD. The parenthetical qualifier makes sense given the dab page −2, where there is an entry for the negative number, but the redirect is not used. In the case of -3 (number), it doesn't make sense to keep the qualified version if we have decided to delete -3 and −3. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frederik Kaarle I of Finland[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The fi.wp article says (transl.) "The electoral document called Friedrich Karl by the name Fredrik Kaarle.[111]" with the citation pointing to page 13 of Riitta Sihvonen's 1997 book Valtaistuin vapaana: Kysymys korkeimman vallan käytöstä Suomessa 1918–1919 which I don't have access to. Google books also has a bunch of hits for "Fredrik Kaarle". Based on the quotations in the fi.wp article, the name also seems to have been used by the Parliament of Finland at the time. So this seems to turn into a question of whether the "I of Finland" suffix is appropriate/relevant. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did some minor research on this topic a year or so ago, and I'm convinced that Kingdom of Finland (1918) should be moved or merged to something like "Attempt to establish a Finnish monarchy" or "Aftermath of the Finnish Civil War". The monarchy was a proposal, but it did not happen, and Finland was never a monarchy (despite the line currently in the lead section about "legally being a monarchy", which I don't believe to really be true). Fredrick Charles never accepted his Kingship of Finland nor even traveled to Finland at the time so his later renunciation of the title was more a "for the record" deal. Even if you accept Finland was a monarchy, they were a monarchy without a king. Lots of people are proposed as monarchs, but they need to actually rule to be monarchs. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, this isn't about whether Finland actually was briefly a monarchy, but whether the name Fredrik Kaarle I of Finland is valid, and therefore justifies the redir. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As Ljleppan says, the official election documents did refer to Friedrich Karl as Fredrik Kaarle. The fiwiki article on him confirms this, citing another book, namely Anders Huldén's 1988 Kuningasseikkailu Suomessa 1918 (ISBN 951-26-2980-1). A quick search also nets a number of RS mentions from eg. YLE, Suomen Kuvalehti and Vasabladet, as well as Deutsche Biographie, all using the name Fredrik Kaarle. (Mind you, none of them append it with 'I of Finland', so if the point of this RfD was that specific part of the name, then I've no comment to offer.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect isn't Fredrik Kaarle. It is Frederik Kaarle. So the name is wrong as well as the suffix. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tradewinds[edit]

If Tradewind is ambiguous—which has been the editorial consensus since 2006—then I think Tradewinds is as well. There's good reason to think that a reader spelling the term this way is looking for one of the eight entities called "Tradewinds" we disambiguate (or the one called TradeWinds), rather than for the concept of trade winds, usually spelled as two words. Thus I think we should retarget to Tradewind. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep trade winds is frequently written without the space [19][20], and is a clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT both by pageviews [21] and long-term significance. Tradewind should also arguably be moved to Tradewind (disambiguation) based on pageviews [22]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Pageviews are meaningless when a redirect is ambiguous: it is conceivable that none of the readers who typed in "tradewinds" was looking for trade winds. Narky Blert (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding pageviews, WikiNav would be the more useful thing to look at here, but for some reason it's not working (at least for me) for this page. If someone can show that "Tradewind" primarily means "Trade wind(s)"—its status as its own page dates back to a fancrufty page about Tradewind (The Incredibles)—I'd support moving that, keeping this redirect, and adding a hatnote at Trade winds (the last bit should happen in any keep outcome here). But Google, at least, suggests to me that that's not the primary meaning; if someone knows how to unb0rk WikiNav, that would be appreciated. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and WP:PLURAL. Veverve (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (WikiNav still not working.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: There is now a requested move at Talk:Tradewind that, if successful, would nullify the argument for retargeting. This should probably be kept open until the RM closes, or, if closed as retarget, should be closed with a note allowing for bold retargeting to match the outcome of the RM if necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • Comment: Note that the noun form Frivolity redirects to Silliness. eviolite (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At least there's not too many possible targets for the noun, and behaviour that is silly and not serious, or things that are silly and not important [23] is pretty much a synonym for silliness, so that one would be correct. Again, the adjective is quite in a different situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and ambiguous. The current target is misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Target is misleading. Gusfriend (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the various terms noted above. BD2412 T 00:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or DABify as per above. In any case, the statu quo cannot be maintained. Veverve (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation draft will help to know if it's feasible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (EP)[edit]

Confusing: The target article's subject is not an extended play (the subject which the disambiguator "EP" seems to most commonly be used for), nor is there reference to an "EP" subject in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Having done a lot of investigation into this I'm baffled as to what the "(EP)" is intended to refer to, if it was "Ep" or "ep" then I'd guess it was intended to point to the Only Fools and Horses episode with this title, but that doesn't make sense when the disambiguator is capitalised (and also wouldn't be a good redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was part of the redirects that I was doing when trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of UK top 40 singles, think I must have seen this down as an EP rather than single. Basically stopped editing because of the way I was made to feel by other editors. Still so many gaps in the coverage.

https://www.discogs.com/release/1459384-Amoure-Who-Wants-To-Be-A-Millionaire-The-Single?msclkid=e22baa99b03d11ec8640f87a1a29fdd2 03md 15:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics and skin disease[edit]

Potential WP:XY issue: Genetics and Skin disease represent two distinct topics, and the target article does not seem to represent a combination of the two topics. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pomeranian (dog breed )[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB, considering the space between the final word and the right parenthesis. In addition, the title with the proper spacing, Pomeranian (dog breed), is a redirect targeting the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty map[edit]

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

Insider Community Board[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the article's subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Online class[edit]

In my opinion, these titles, along with Online learning, mainly refer to Distance education, particularly the recent subset of distance education that is online. I think this might be the primary topic, however, maybe others disagree. Do these terms refer to online technology that may be used while students are physically in a classroom? Is there a difference between the meaning of these terms? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak target to the DAB, else Target both at Distance education. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:22, 30 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not retarget to the disambiguation page, as it would be shot on sight as a title unrelated to topics generally on the page. BD2412 T 04:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs disambiguation. Either by making it a dab page or by adding the relevant entries to the main dab page. I oppose North-South Divide in the United Kingdom as a target because that article doesn't (and shouldn't) deal with a divide within Scotland because that's a different topic. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, your suggestion implies that the term "North-South divide in Scotland" has several meanings, but the only one I'm seeing is the north-south divide described at Geography of Scotland#Political Geography. What am I missing here? – Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that unsourced paragraph (which I'm about to tag as containing potentially original research) makes it clear that there is a political and physical north-south divide. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that! I get your point now, thanks. But there aren't separate articles that treat the physical and the cultural north–south divides, are there? Highland Boundary Fault has some discussion of the geology on both sides of the fault line, but the only content it has about a big country-level division is the mention that the fault separates the terrains of the Highlands and the Lowlands, which are precisely the regions mentioned by Geography of Scotland#Political geography in both cultural and natural sense. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Geography of Scotland#Political geography per Jay. This is the only place on Wikipedia that currently discusses a north–south divide of the country, and the articles about the Highlands, Lowlands and the geological feature are only related topics, already linked in that text. If that content is moved or recreated elsewhere, then retarget there; if it's removed as unsourced, then that would mean the redirect should be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Blind Driveway[edit]

No mention of this name at the target, nor could searching yield any proof that Gorka ever used this name. Appears to be linked to a long term hoax at WP:LOHOW. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting previous RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 19#Slow Blind Driveway.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects with spacing issues to Naruto character page[edit]

Delete all per WP:RDAB. Each of these redirects' properly spaced variants exist and target the same target, respectively (except Hidan(naruto); for that, Hidan (Naruto) with a capital N exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 29[edit]

Bosniac(Bošnjak)[edit]

In addition to the WP:RDAB these redirects have (due to there not being a space between the title and the disambiguator), their properly-spaced variants do not exist and probably should not. It seems both the title and the disambiguator refer to the same subject, but even then, Bosniac and Bosnjak represent two different pages on Wikipedia. Probably best to delete these redirects due to them not being too clear where they should target and there not being a clear WP:PRECISE target for them. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First one was a short-lived (about 2 hours, 11 minutes in 2004) single-sentence duplicate stub. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Sister: Best of Geri Halliwell[edit]

I'm assuming all of these refer to the same subject, but none of these are mentioned at the target article or Geri Halliwell discography, leaving readers finding nothing about this subject if they are looking for it. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Hydrographic Office[edit]

Should these target the same place? The Indian NHD department is the only one I've found with any signficant content about a national hydrographic office, but the list includes other offices with this exact name about which we don't have articles (e.g. Oman, which also gets passing mentions elsewhere). Category:National hydrographic offices shows we have articles about similarly named organisations at least some of which this would be a plausible search term. That category notes the lowercase title as the main article, but it has only ever been a redirect. However this revision from 2016 of Hydrographic office was an article with a list. The redirection of that appears to have been done boldly by Boris Kaiser "due to overlap", see Talk:Hydrographic office. I've run out of time to investigate further. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

فري بيك[edit]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no particular association between the target and Arabic. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Portuguese[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, nor are cognate terms mentioned at the linked ptWiki article. Searching both the internet and Google Scholar in both English and Portuguese, all results appear to be about documents written in a mix of Portuguese and Latin, rather than Brazilian Portuguese. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpy(King Kong)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB. The title with proper spacing, Lumpy (King Kong), is a redirect towards the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahachanok[edit]

This redirect currently targets Mahanipata Jataka#Mahajanaka, an article that does not contain a section called "Mahajanaka" and does not mention "Mahachanok", although it contains a section called "2. Prince Mahajanaka (the lost prince) - Act of vigour". Perhaps "Mahachanok" is an alternative name for that lost prince. There is no hatnote about the term in that article, but there is an article at Mahachanok (mango) about a highly notable mango cultivar. The term is also mentioned with a non-mango meaning in the articles Imam Pasand and Wat Pathum Khongkha, and there is a variant of the term as "Maha Chanok" that is a partial string match to red links for Pathum Borom Maha Chanok in several articles such as Vajirananavarorasa. Should "Mahachanok" become a dab page? Should a mention be added in Mahanipata Jataka#Mahajanaka? Should Mahachanok (mango) be moved to "Mahachanok" (or "Maha Chanok")? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Mahachanok is simply the romanised Thai pronunciation of the name Mahajanaka, which seems to be the mango's namesake. (It was named by King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who also wrote a version of the Mahajanaka story where a mango tree plays a prominent allegorical role near the end.) Since PohranicniStraze created the mango article at the disambiguated title, I assumed that the jataka tale was understood to be the primary topic, and redirected the plain name there accordingly. (The Mahanipata Jataka article could do with some major reworking, and the section titles should be shortened. But anyway, I've added the anchor that I apparently forgot when making the redirect. I do think Mahajanaka could and should eventually be a standalone article.) Whether the mango has actually become the primary topic in English usage, I'm not sure. Google News results are indeed mainly about the mango, though Google Books shows results mostly about the jataka. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit on the fence between a disambiguation of the term and a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the mango article with a hatnote. This is a WP:TWODABS situation, and I suspect most Wikipedia readers are looking for the mango, especially when considering that there isn't much information available on Wikipedia about the jataka, and what is provided is not very extensive. I think I lean slightly toward the mango as the primary meaning for Wikipedia readers, but I would be happy to defer to using disambiguation if your opinion differs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender – Agni Kai[edit]

Redirect title is not used in target article. Tube·of·Light 13:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1–2 finish[edit]

This redirect is misleading, and basically an WP:EGG redirect. 1-2 finishes are not unique to Formula One, or even motorsport. It is unreasonable to assume that most, (or even 5% of) people looking up 1-2 finish, are looking for a Formula One stat. SSSB (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a term used outside of motorsport? A few searches turned up nothing for me outside of motorsport. We could add the term to Glossary of motorsport terms and redirect there. A7V2 (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The results are biased towards recent events, but I got results relating to ski-cross (x3-4), speed skating (x2), para biathlon and Athletics. I think the only reason you get mostly motorsport is because that is where 1-2s are most common, not becuase it is motorsport terminology. And the only reason it is most common in motorsport is because it is one of the few sports where team mates compete seperatly (outside of Olympics/world Championships). I would therefore prefer general defintion on wiktionary (as Glossary of sports terms doesn't exist). SSSB (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah yes of course. I've heard the term in reference to athletics now that I think about it. I still think the term is mostly associated/used with motorsport. I think readers/searchers are best served by going to the motorsport glossary now that an entry exists there. We could add a sentence to the definition there with something like "The term is also used for any sporting event where two competitors from the same team, country, etc. finish in the first two places." A7V2 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms#0–9 as alternative to deletion. It's mostly associated with motorsport. czar 02:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete this is not restricted to motorsports. Just look at the Olympics -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I of Brazil[edit]

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

Pat Ford (activist)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 5#Pat Ford (activist)

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Manavati: which is the other princess of Amber who you say has a wikipedia article? Jay (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: The other princess is Manbhawati Bai (later Shah Begum), a niece and daughter-in-law of Mariam-uz-Zamani. Manavati (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was looking for "Princess of Amber" and this is "Princess of Amer" (which is actually the same). Delete given that neither of the two people are referred to in their articles with these royal titles. Delete Maan Kunwari per nom. Jay (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urens[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 5#Urens

Dunghill fowl[edit]

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

The Kharkiv kid finder[edit]

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

Garjanai (2017 film)[edit]

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

March 28[edit]

Transcendental Meditation® program[edit]

No evidence that any use of a registered trademark applies to the target. In addition, the version of these redirects without the registered trademark designation, Transcendental Meditation program, is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inclusion of registration symbols in titles implies endorsement by Wikipedia of claims to intellectual property rights that are beyond our scope. BD2412 T 20:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm no expert in this area-although I have edited on TM articles in the past. I do know Transcendental Meditation is trademarked, and my understanding, and this is from many years ago, was that we had to include the trademark symbol when using the words Transcendental Meditation. Whether that matters to Wikipedia or in this instance, I don't know but this is what I remember, for what that's worth. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem, to me, is with "is trademarked". Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. Is the phrase trademarked everywhere in the world? Will it always be? Trademarks expire after a time. It's not our job to police trademarks claimed by others. BD2412 T 04:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BD2412 and MOS:®, which says "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context." The terms also seem potentially promotional, trying to use Wikipedia to promote a claim of protection of these terms. Lots of terms used on Wikipedia are claimed as trademarks, and we shouldn't encourage a proliferation of such redirects. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Transcendental Meditation is trademarked worldwide and has been for decades nor is it promotional to simply use such a legitimate trademark. Those arguments are spurious. However, if Wikipedia has a guideline that prohibits trademarks, however legitimate, than I can understand a deletion. However, please do the research as to the legitimacy of the trademark before supporting a deletion, based on inaccurate claims. Because I don't see, at this point, legitimate arguments for deletion I am now going to vote Keep although, I had no intention of bothering with this. I thought there was something legitimate here, but I don't see that, at this point. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transcendental Meditation®/TM® are registered or common law trademarks, licensed to Maharishi Foundation USA, a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization.
  • This is merely a reference to registration in the United States. There are scores of countries with trademark registration systems. Is it registered in China? In South Africa? In New Zealand? BD2412 T 21:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would assume so since the Maharishi Foundation is a world-wide org, but I'm no expert in this area. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be. I don't care one way or the other whether this is deleted or not, but I wouldn't mind if the information on the reason to delete was accurate and so far so one has contributed anything more than opinions? I guess because of that I'd just leave it the way it is now, but not attached. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the record, "assume" is the "mother of all screwups" (according to a semi-public figure I admire deeply, a paraphrase, I'll grant; my father used quite a different phrase). Based on MOS, we don't include service marks. That's not an opinion. That's a guideline which we are required to follow. Wikipedia doesn't endorse trademarks, although we do take such copyright quite seriously. We are not a platform for defending service marks of any kind. That's a matter for the holders' legal advisors. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. This is a leftover from a 2003-era page move carried out explicitly to remove the (R) symbol from a page title, and is no longer needed. — The Anome (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was in reference to the several assumptions made here. I have no concerns with deleting based on Wikipedia guides. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:33, 5 April 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]
  • 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]
    @Nayan576 Out of 1724 killing by militants during past 3 decades 89 were KP's. Ref signed، 511KeV (talk) 13:40, 15 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. signed، 511KeV (talk) 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]
  • 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]

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)
Jhy.rjwk (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)contribs) 23:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC) (Relocated to chronologically correct place (new comments at bottom when added) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I wouldn't say they are reliable sources. India's press ranks extremely low when it comes to the Press Freedom Index, suggesting there is significant government interference. It ranks 142 out of 180 countries. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu is perfectly fine per WP:RSPSS.--NØ 13:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the The Hindu article? It isn't calling it a genocide, its a film review which says that "[t]he film ... presents the tragic exodus as a full-scale genocide, akin to the Holocaust", a film that the review itself describes as a "revisionist docudrama" and states the following, "[e]mploying some facts, some half-truths, and plenty of distortions, it propels an alternative view about the Kashmir issue". Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is critical of the film but does make a mention of the event as an alleged genocide. I can see it as a potential search term for readers of pieces like this.--NØ 17:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not treat film criticism as authentic fact. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The existence of the term used by a minority of RS does not justify the timesink that this redirect is; already, the full protection is being evaded by ethnonationalists redirecting to this redirect *facepalm* We do not need this, people. SN54129 21:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid term backed by multiple reliable scholarly sources.[24][25][26] and not to forget how many media sources have used the same term so far. Whether the term is more authentic than "exodus" or "displacement" is not supposed to be discussed here.❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 06:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kautilya3. The death toll doesn't amount to anything even resembling a genocide, and it is rather insulting to even compare it to events such as the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and Srebrenica. It would be more appropriate to use the term refugee crisis or exodus. This redirect is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable redirect and the term has appeared in vast number of WP:RS. Shrikanthv (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete till there is a mention in the article (if it's found to have due weight) per Tamzin (I couldn't have worded it better). The article at present doesn't cover the perspective at all, and as such without any context, the redirect presents a fringe inflammatory designation in the encyclopedia's voice. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : As per United Nations Genocide Convention there are five acts which are treated as Genocide. (Source - wiki Genocide and source) and in the case Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus first three applies.
  1. Killing members of the group
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Article II(b)
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Dsnb07 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tamzin. There are a couple more - 1990_Kashmiri_Pandit_genocide (since 2017) and Kashmiri Pandit genocide (created on March 14). Since they are essentially identical to this, is opening a new discussion for them necessary or can the result of this discussion be held applicable to them as well? Hemantha (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5000 people were killed which then lead to the exodus to 500000 people sources [27] , [28], [29], [30],[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.43.63 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC) (Move to correct section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per #5 at WP:R#KEEP and also per reliable sources provided by several editors above. I have also found a book titled "Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir".[32] Those supporting deletion only deem the redirect to be representing the disputed title for the entire event but that is clearly not a valid criteria for deletion. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The committee which authored/published the book you link, was set up by RSS. Hardly a reliable one, as are the others linked by the previous IP voter, which are blog posts and tweets. Hemantha (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsnb07: And yet we call them 2002 Gujarat riots and 2020 Delhi riots. What forked tongues we speak with when the Hindus do the killing Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all such reasons given above. A google search for 'Kashmir genocide'also shows this as the top result. Also, to respond to User:Fowler&fowler, Gujarat genocide redirects to 2002 Gujarat riots. Kpddg (talk • contribs) 04:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is only *now* when the Hindu India of a Hindu majoritarian state is in all of a tizzy about being in a minority. The Hindu nationalists might have forgotten this in their new found state of euphoric mourning, but WP has to also remember that many more Kashmiri Muslims have been killed by the Indian armed forces than Hindus by the Muslim insurgents, orders of magnitude more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is your point of view. The recent movie released has prompted people regarding this issue. As far as I remember, Hindus are not in a state of minority. People are now aware of the atrocities commited. I am not saying that there has been no violece against others as well, but it is essential to be fair to all groups. When Gujarat genocide can redirect to 2002 Gujarat riots, why can't it be done here too, as per the many reasons mentioned above. Kpddg (talk • contribs) 05:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We need more global academic consensus and commentary about figures before the term genocide comes into play. At least that is the criteria held against all other conflicts. Mar4d (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't seem to be any consensus regarding Gujarat genocide and 1984 Sikh genocide either.--NØ 07:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tamzin. MOS:LABEL states that contentious labels should only be used when they are in wide use externally, and it does not appear that 'genocide' in reference to this event has seen "wide use". The sourcing that has been brought to light in this discussion is flimsy, especially the sources in the context of a film review. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The movie/documentary, "The Kashmir Files" is a super hit and as the word genocide has been used in the movie, a lot of people are searching online for the, "Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus", so I request that either this redirect should be kept or a new article for the, "Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus", should be created here on wikipedia - reliable sources are available for the same as I can see in the discussion above. A google search for, "Kashmir genocide" also shows the Wikipedia article as the top result.-Y2edit? (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I note that discussion of the classification of genocide has now been added to the target, where it is described as a fringe view. Pinging editors whose "delete" !votes were contingent on lack of mention (or per an argument along the same lines): Tamzin, Tayi Arajakate, Hemantha
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As stated by others, it is a common search term, mentioned in RS and discussed in the article. Wikihc (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reading through this discussion, I see relatively weak arguments on both sides: a lot of the keep arguments indulge in original research, but the invocation of WP:RNEUTRAL to call for deletion also seems misplaced: while RS focused on the subject and region do not call the event a genocide, there appear to be sufficient sources of varying reliability that do call it a genocide (and I would agree with delete !voters, polemically so), such that a non-neutral redirect is appropriate, particularly as there is now discussion of whether or not the "genocide" label applies at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheTekkitRealm[edit]

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

Irish separatists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 5#Irish separatists

Immutocracy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Immutocracy

Utricle (fruit)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 5#Utricle (fruit)

Droid \(font\)[edit]

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

Junk food vegan[edit]

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

Fastest NFL Player[edit]

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

Salad vegetable[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Salad vegetable

Shabji[edit]

Delete per WP:FORRED. This redirect seems to be in the Bengali language, which the target article's subject does not have affinity. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:FORRED: non-English title is in common use. I have takeaway menus for two separate UK restaurants. My options include (1) Shabji Bhajee £3.25 (Fresh mixed vegetables) & Shabji Sag £3.25 (Fresh mixed vegetables cooked with spinach).(2) Shabji Paneer £3.50 (no translation). Hazardous to Health (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...And what type of cuisine do these restaurants represent? Seems like a cuisine type that uses a foreign language. The menu items you listed may be okay to have on this Wikipedia per WP:FORRED due to not having a proper English translation and/or being more commonly known in English by their foreign-language term/phrases, but the individual words themselves should be deleted per WP:FORRED since the subject of the word itself does not have affinity to the language which it is in. (In other words, "delete per WP:FORRED" should be valid for the nominated redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) "Indian & Bangladeshi" (2) "Indian Cuisine" [[WP:FORRED] in a nutshell: Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion. I do not live in a city and yet both these restaurants are within walking distance of me. I believe you are from North America, so I suspect, from your persective, the inclusion has little use. But in the UK Indian and Anglo-Indian cuisine is so pervasive that the last link is actually a sub-section of "English cuisine"! Hazardous to Health (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment didn't address my point in the least, and the point you are mentioning again is menu items (phrases which include the word) rather than the individual word itself. Please reread my comment if necessary and, if needed, address what I was stating rather than, I'm assuming unintentionally, WP:BLUDGEON-ing your stance. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and nom's arguments that while the cuisine would have made sense, this word by itself doesn't, unless we have a better target. Jay (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Jay. Retarget Sabzi as second choice (I'm not entirely sure but I think shabji is the same thing as In Indian cuisine, a vegetable cooked in gravy, also spelled sabji, based on a bit of Googling, so it could also be a valid transliteration of the other terms?). eviolite (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Redirect as addditional context has been unearthed. See my Comment above - now amended. Shabji (Prev >> Vegetable) is an alternate spelling for Sabji (Prev >> Curry). I have redirected both to Sabzi#Culinary uses and thus a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion Hazardous to Health (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit vegetable[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Fruit vegetable

Mammoth tank[edit]

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

Wikipedia:S[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Wikipedia:S

.日本国[edit]

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

Charles Gerard Conn[edit]

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

Consanguinity (in Canon Law)[edit]

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

Stevens grips[edit]

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

March 27[edit]

2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)[edit]

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

Template:Rotten[edit]

Make disambiguation page for Template:Rotten Tomatoes (move discussion in progress), Template: Rotten Tomatoes data, and Template: RT prose Indagate (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and skip making it a disambiguation page, in my opinion. We don't need it to be a link to anything since "Rotten" by itself is not clearly connected with the review aggregator. Only 31 articles appear to use it, and they can be updated to use a more descriptive template name. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Erik after replacing usages. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete. I agree with Erik that "Rotten" per se is not specific enough to Rotten Tomatoes to warrant a disambiguation page.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 18:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa sauce[edit]

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

Snake Island massacre[edit]

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

White Russian Americans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#White Russian Americans

Template:Original research span[edit]

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

Management services organization[edit]

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

GHOST (vessel)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#GHOST (vessel)

Osteopathic medicine[edit]

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

Triangulare[edit]

Ligamentum triangulare and Spatium axillare triangulare appear to be similar topics (triangular anatomical parts) as the current topic, and I didn't see that the term is used without the preceding qualifier. Numerous in title uses in species names. Nothing against current target if those more knowledgeable of the topic know that it is used primarily without a qualifier to refer to the bones. Otherwise, might be better to delete or point to Wiktionary; SIA or dab could work, but not sure how appropriate it is as a WP:PARTIAL. Ost (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at both mentioned triangulare pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

=U=[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#=U=

Northern Irish nationalism[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Ukrainian Orthodox Church[edit]

retarget to Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) per [33] @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]
I prefer to see more than one participant in a deletion discussion besides the nominator. I've closed deletion discussions that only had one but I prefer to see more participants before choosing whether or not to delete a page. Other closers might have different opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move Dab page as Jay said Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:10, 29 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]

  • Delete both per nom. Elder Llywelyn was created by Cltjames, and Llywelyn the elder was created by Serial Number 54129. The former was the page's title for less than a day, and the latter was the page's title for about a month. I'm going with the different talk page conversations that seem to imply that these redirect titles are not actual terms, but helpful (short) titles that were used only within enwiki to distinguish the subject from Llywelyn the Great. And now they realize that the redirect titles are misnomers. Jay (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I realise nothing of the sort, and your mind reading is, of course, wrong, as well as an implicit exercise in bad faith. Cheers! SN54129 20:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page discussions participants who are in consensus would be Cltjames and Ham II. My reading of your comment at Talk:Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd: The only redirect that's actually important here, to me, is that Llwelyn Fawr and the Great are shown as being the same individual; which did not mention about the Elder redirects, was that you are either fine with their suggestions, or had no opinion on the Elder redirects. I may have misunderstood your usage of smileys. You may want to rephrase what you meant there. Jay (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Realize" is an extremely :loaded word. SN54129 22:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

∾[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

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]

  • Comment I think this can be closed as WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS now. Paradoctor (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC) 22:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal search results, where the link to Wiktionary will be on the right hand side with "Results from sister projects". Another use for the inverted lazy S not yet mentioned is in combination with L, as described in that article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Areo Magazine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Areo Magazine

High Princess (Stache)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#High Princess (Stache)

March 26[edit]

File:Favicon.PNG[edit]

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

Emmerdale Films[edit]

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

List of railway stations in the United States[edit]

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

Virgin Cuba Libre[edit]

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

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source has been located, but there is still no mention at the current target. The primary topic question also remains unresolved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chile at the 2023 Pan American Games[edit]

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

Russia vs. Ukraine[edit]

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

Even more Spider-Man[edit]

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

SM (2002 film)[edit]

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

Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation[edit]

Target is a dab page that doesn't mention anything about wrestling, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Middling-weak retarget to Power Broker (character), which mentions this fictional entity. Middling-weak (with second choice delete) because the mentions are fairly brief, and, if that article had a less bloated plot summary, it's not clear to me it would be mentioned at all. (I don't mean "it's not clear to me" as a polite way to say "I don't think that"; I genuinely can't tell, from the way the article is written, how significant this element is in-universe. 20 of the article's 22 references are primary, and it contains Fandom-y writing like Very little is known about the second version of the Power Broker other than he wears a battle suit and can project bolts of energy from his hands. This new Power Broker has apparently taken over Power Broker, Inc. This makes it an imperfect reference point to judge this redirect's appropriateness.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bigamy (in Civil Law)[edit]

I do not know what to to with this redirect. This redirect seems very unlikely to help anyone. It also has capitalisation mistakes.
@Shhhnotsoloud: has pointed out the article Bigamy existed, and suggested at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Bigamy (in Canon Law) that the redirect be deleted.
I would like to point out in case it may be useful, that Legality of polygamy exists. However, I am not sure if it would be a good redirect, as the redirect might not be useful in itself with such a name. Veverve (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think I've figured out where all these are coming from, namely the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has "Bigamy (in Civil Jurisprudence)", which it appears in some editions may have been "Bigamy (in Civil Law)" [34]. Collier's also had "Bigamy, in civil law" in 1921, maybe also later. Normally I'd support deletion of a nonstandard disambiguator like this, but here, I don't know, I could see it being useful to someone. Unlike the "in Canon Law" RfD, where the issue was an existing consensus against the primary version of that redirect. I'd thus lean toward a retarget to Legality of polygamy (noting that "civil" here means "non-ecclesiastical", not "civil-code-based"). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appleton, WI MSA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Appleton, WI MSA

Marek Ujlaky (footballer, born 1989)[edit]

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

814 (rap group)[edit]

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

Feminist views of stripping and sex work[edit]

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

Amazing (2012 film)[edit]

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

Pays de Galles[edit]

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

Fantastic Four 3[edit]

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

The Amazing Spider Man (again)[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Speedy rename[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#Wikipedia:Speedy rename

Pointless Mii Redirects[edit]

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

Diuranium[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#Diuranium

Irish people in Scotland[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Irish loyalism[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

March 25[edit]

Baroness Brightman[edit]

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

Three Powers Agreement[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Three Powers Agreement

La Mega[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#La Mega

Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters[edit]

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

Free fuel[edit]

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

You'll get your rent when you fix this damn door![edit]

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

Navy comm[edit]

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

Unmentioned fictional creatures in King Kong (2005 film)[edit]

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

Kong references in King Kong (2005 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Kong references in King Kong (2005 film)

Eye for an eye(Fran Drescher)[edit]

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

Clearstor(e)y[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#Clearstor(e)y

Monomer(s)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Monomer(s)

Warcraft(Film)[edit]

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

Zilla(1998 film)[edit]

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

Radical Feminism: Feminist Acitivism in Movement[edit]

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

Snake Farm Insurance[edit]

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

Pontastacus[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: converted to an article on the genus.

Myles Ponsonby, 12th Earl of Bessborough[edit]

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

Untitled Neutral Milk Hotel song[edit]

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

Jschlatt[edit]

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

Start point[edit]

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

TDEE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#TDEE

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Eng (letter). I acknowledge that cedilla is a potentially a closer match strictly speaking, but I also agree that ŋ is a much more common term and more likely to be searched for. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to ņ. The cedilla looks a lot like a comma. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 19:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ņ is a redirect. Do you mean retarget to Cedilla? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 02:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:13, 25 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]
  • Delete - apparently not worth mentioning in longevity-related articles anymore, and certainly a mention in a community article would be undue per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people, which flatly states To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE.. eviolite (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Here is the old page that was merged into the list. The list now keeps track of only the top 100 oldest. I find it interesting that Shelby Harris was the 3rd oldest man in the world and was fully the oldest man in the United States at the time of his death, but now doesn't even merit an entry in the list. I kinda want to restore his article for that feat... he once was clearly notable, does notability really go away just because 100 more people out aged him? He used to be #1... this isn't a rhetorical question. Is notability once notability forever, or is being eclipsed grounds for being forgotten? Fieari (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. There are all sorts of other record holders, in sports, in wealth, and so forth, who we would keep despite the record once held being long surpassed. BD2412 T 00:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with this assessment. When the AFD occurred, there was already a section on Harris at the target. I can understand for whatever reason the list part of the article needs to be kept to some number of people, but why would semi-notable people be removed from the article entirely. I would support restoring the section and refining there. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George C. Nield[edit]

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

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]
    • I'm not sure about this being appropriate. Searching this and related terms on Google gives me only hits for the Mercedes product (at least as far down as I bothered to look). I'm not convinced these terms are used generically. A7V2 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remove Benz from your search -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still didn't find any usage of this term generically, all were particular brand/company names, none of whom are mentioned at the suggested target. And there were other things too, such as a tv repair company [35] and a prison telephone [36]. A7V2 (talk) 23:54, 20 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! 05:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the current target is too broad, and there seems to be no other plausible target. Oppose the suggestion of Helpline, unless User:65 or someone else can show references of the term being used so. I too didn't find any with my searches. Jay (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 25 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 [37] and now more recent ones like [38]. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of Audi vehicles per Andra Febrian and tag as {{R with possibilities}}. According to this source an Audi Q6 has been announced for the Chinese market. Bonoahx (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why would we retarget it there if there is no mention? "Will be announced" is a very clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. If and when mention is added to the list, or if if there is enough sourcing to justify an article then it can be recreated. Having these rumours around is all the more reason to delete since they make this a more likely search term, and someone searching this would then be taken to a list, they would then probably look through the list only to be disappointed and have wasted their time. A7V2 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It does not help the reader. Jay (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 24[edit]

George Zho[edit]

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

Mercedes-Benz CLT-Class[edit]

The only reference to this I can find anywhere is this article [40] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:21, 17 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! 21:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special military operation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Special military operation

Mercedes-Benz T-Class[edit]

Both of these are rumoured/recently announced new models (see for example [41], [42] for the CLE, [43] and [44] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:20, 17 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! 21:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De Gebroeders Ko[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#De Gebroeders Ko

Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Turok (BVG game)[edit]

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

Carpenters Corner, Minnesota[edit]

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

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the reason to delete (a typo) is outweighed by the reason to keep (the page history). Per WP:CHEAP, keeping really doesn't have a negative since in the unlikely event someone types this in specifically, then they will still be taken to what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:30, 24 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]
  • Delete. This bizarre redirect shouldn't exist. It implies that there is a disambiguation page, which there isn't, and its existence is thereby confusing (WP:RDELETE items 2 & 5). We don't create "(disambiguation)" redirect pages for every article just in case someday there might be a need for a real disambiguation page. I don't see any need for an additional redirect to Zoology#History, but if you actually needed one, you could create one titled "History of animal study" or some such. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. This used to target History of zoology when that page was a WP:SIA-like stub, which was then blanked and redirects to its present target, with the "(disambiguation)" version subsequently targeted there as well to avoid the double redirect. So, the history very much confirms this is a {{R from avoided double redirect}} to History of zoology (and should be tagged as such). History of zoology targeting Zoology#History as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is just fine and certainly appropriate, but it's still an ambiguous term with at least 3 potential targets, so there very well should be a page at History of zoology (disambiguation). Instead of hosting a disambiguation page as would normally be expected in the case of a primary topic (which one could argue should be the case here), it instead redirects to a place that with hatnotes that performs the disambiguation. In any case, nothing to be gained from deletion here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is something to be gained if users like R. S. Shaw above are expecting to see a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice I have just created an article at History of zoology for this blindingly, obviously notable topic.
That has been objected to. Paradoctor (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, and if that shouldn't find consensus, delete as second option. Paradoctor (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not in use, and ambiguity is sketchy, at best. Not seeing any plausible use case. Paradoctor (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: Having a disambiguation page would allow for a link to the different history pages and also related topics. Gusfriend (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gusfriend: If the topics are related then they are not "ambiguous". BD2412 T 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it weren't a bit off kilter to create disambiguation redirects to an article because of the hatnotes there, this particular redirect isn't appropriate: "History of zoology" doesn't need disambiguating, it unambiguously refers to a single topic, whose main coverage on Wikipedia happens to be split for convenience between two articles. – Uanfala (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was created by a bot in 2010 when the corresponding History of zoology was incorrectly tagged as a disambiguation page. The tagging was corrected to SIA only in 2015. So although this was not created in error (the bot followed the rules), it has since become incorrect. Jay (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or DABify: a page which ends with "(disambiguation)" should always be a DAB page or point toward a DAB page. Veverve (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disambiguation redirects that point to non-disambiguation pages are ususally shot on sight. Even if a page listing links to different eras was made at the title, "History of zoology", that would be a set index or a broad concept article, not a disambiguation page, as there are no ambiguous terms here. BD2412 T 22:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinocchio: A True Story[edit]

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

Computerwoche (0170-5121)[edit]

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

Khaled \(musician\)[edit]

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

Redirects with no space before disambiguator that target spaced title[edit]

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

Teaser(gesture)[edit]

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

Gaysex[edit]

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

Lifeformed[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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Avenue (Washington, D.C.)[edit]

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

March 23[edit]

Penisular redirects[edit]

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

M*A*S*H(tv series)[edit]

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

Gianpaul Gonzalez[edit]

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

Brad Jones (baseball)[edit]

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

Smart Sockets[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Smart Sockets

Chakra(Naruto)[edit]

The target section doesn't exist. The proper spaced variant, Chakra (Naruto), doesn't exist (and content at this title was deleted multiple times). There doesn't seem to be a proper place in Naruto-related articles to target this redirect or the nonexistent aforementioned proper spaced variant. Probably best to delete to let search results provide the best assistance. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium(metal)[edit]

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

Bego Turks[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Bucharest summit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Bucharest summit

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a likely search term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. How is it a hate symbol anyway? Veverve (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not known as a hate symbol. Most likely search would include "Russia" or "Russian". Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

macOS 13[edit]

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

Willie Foster[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Willie Foster

Homaridae[edit]

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

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]
  • Delete Not valid ways to write target's name. Searching them will likely be enough to educate the user. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HoWard Taft due to external links (K4). Might as well keep the other one too. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep capital W; cheap and links, Delete capital F per consensus above. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ward, Delete Ft casualdejekyll 20:16, 24 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]
  • Delete Patently inaccurate written names for the targets. Deleting them will correctly tell our readers they are not applicable, and searching them will likely bring up relevant topics of interest. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/delete per Thryduulf. Zaathras' argument is just incorrect; 146 pageviews per year is well above-average for a redirect. Looking through my own redirect creations, the only ones that exceed that are ones where I happened to snag a common term that for some reason hadn't been redirected yet, like Meteorological event or Transfem. As to Zeke's argument, we don't break incoming links just to teach our readers a lesson about spelling. In fact, our guideline says the exact opposite. There are valid reasons to break incoming links (like if the redirect is impermissibly non-neutral), but that isn't one. I don't like the idea of keeping CoBain, but it seems clear enough it's what we have to do. If someone wants to check back in a few years, maybe whatever page links to that redirect will have gone down or changed the link, and we can delete it. Delete ToBy as probably just noise from search-bar suggestions, or miscapped searches that Special:Search would have handled anyways. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ToBy, weak keep CoBain per Sonic/Thryduulf/Tamzin. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:22, 23 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. and REDYES. Veverve (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 21[edit]

Up and Over[edit]

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

Dunghill fowl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 29#Dunghill fowl

Meatcube[edit]

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

Draft:I Won't Break[edit]

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

Urens[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 29#Urens

County Line Country Fest[edit]

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

TheTekkitRealm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 28#TheTekkitRealm

Irish separatists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 28#Irish separatists

Utricle (fruit)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 28#Utricle (fruit)

TUROPHOBIA[edit]

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

CAT:VIACOM[edit]

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

CAT:WAWTOFUI[edit]

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

Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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]

  • Delete. I find it a close call between Keep and Delete, but I think re-targeting to Revolution of Dignity would be a mistake. That re-targeting tends to imply that 2013 had nothing to do with it, which is misleading. Without this redirect, the possible-match list that drops down when typing in the search box would show "Ukrainian Revolution of 2013-14", which acknowledges the 2013 roots of the 2014 revolution. Google for the redirect-title phrase shows both articles together at the top, with Revolution of Dignity first. Overall, delete seems best to me. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the revolution is not known by that name. Readers looking for the revolution in the context of 2013 will still be offered with Ukrainian Revolution of 2013-14 per Shaw. Jay (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think this is a plausible misnomer given this is a series of events that began in 2013 and ended with a 2014 revolution. Anyone who may have thought the revolution started in 2013 will be granted easy access to the article that explains what happened when. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 3 April 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]
In the absence of any replies I would suggest a soft delete, so that anybody can recreate it with a better target. Avilich (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are more people than Alkiviadis Stefanis who use it as the first name. I have attempted a disambig draft at the redirect. Jay (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay and Eviolite: These are just variant transliterations, as far as I can tell; would it not make more sense to retarget to Alcibiades (disambiguation) and expand that page to include this transliteration? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK if someone knowledgeable (in terms of the transliteration) adds all the Alkiviadis entries into the Alcibiades dab. Jay (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'd be okay with that too. eviolite (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguate as drafted unless we have the merged dab page per Tamzin. The merge can be done even later after this closes. Jay (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as drafted - reasonable forename page. eviolite (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as drafted. Despite the shared origin, the two names – the Modern Greek on and the one in languages of Western Europe (list at Alcibiades (disambiguation)) – are different. They're pronounced differently, often spelt differently, and readers typing one won't be looking for the other. Disambiguating separately is, therefore, best. – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:S[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 28#Wikipedia:S

March 16[edit]

Yard Ball[edit]

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

Mossy Land[edit]

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

Jodhi Bibi[edit]

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

Sweetest Pie (song)[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move to Sweetest Pie (Curve song)

Yash jha[edit]

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

You can't spell 'steal' without EA[edit]

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

Carpenters Corner, Minnesota[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 24#Carpenters Corner, Minnesota

Areo Magazine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#Areo Magazine

List of K-pop artists[edit]

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

.gov.uk[edit]

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

Olympic medalist[edit]

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

Fairytale Love[edit]

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

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) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential closer comment: If compelled to close right now, I would invoke WP:NCRET and retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains. I am wary of doing so because that could just kick the can down the road. It creates another situation (redirecting without mention) ripe for deletion. A further relist doesn't seem likely to help much, so I'd just generally ask participants to consider breaking the deadlock some way. In no particular order, that could look like adding explicitly discussion of double redirects at the proposed target, switching to a delete vote, or even writing an article on the concept. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not possible to add something about them at MediaWiki? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relisting to prepare participants for a possible inevitable re-nomination in the near future. And to give an opportunity for participants to re-evaluate based on the late support URL redirection#Redirect chains has got.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish nationalism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#Northern Irish nationalism

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

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

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

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

Z (hate symbol)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Z (hate symbol)

Sope Willams- Elegbe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 24#Sope Willams- Elegbe

macOS 13[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#macOS 13

Electrifying Times[edit]

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

Military journalist[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1081043227"