Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 71 71
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 0 10 10
RfD 0 0 0 48 48
AfD 0 0 0 2 2

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

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?

[edit]


Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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

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

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

Reasons for not deleting

[edit]
Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list

[edit]
Shortcuts

November 30

[edit]

November 29

[edit]

Hallelujah night

[edit]

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

List of killings by law enforcement officers in Sri Lanka

[edit]

Law enforcement officers are not the same as government forces ★ Ttheek ⏵ 22:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox (channel)

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This would end up being a complicated index to create. Is anyone up for the challenge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomfiness

[edit]

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

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

  • Delete, both per WP:SOFTSP, which reserves this for words that would be commonly wikified, which is hard to see happening for this, but also because Wiktionary redirects are generally harmful. Ngrams finds zero occurrences of this in all of its corpora. It's hard to imagine anyone seriously using this as a search term. And for the record, even a keep would be preferable to the Wikt redirect, since that would at least lead to encyclopedic content about comfort. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wading bird(s)

[edit]

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

Both should point to "Wader (American)", I don't really see any evidence that the term "wading bird" is regularly used for waders/shorebirds in any part of the world. TBH "Wader (American)" is a bizarre title that should probably be moved to "Wading bird". Somatochlora (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria, Hilfe der Christen

[edit]

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

Luigi Circuit

[edit]

Not mentioned in target expect for happening to be the track that the screenshot was taken on. Side note: I apparently made this redirect when there was more (unsourced) content about it in the article. Interesting. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Mall

[edit]

Only mentioned in passing in the Reception section as one of the tracks people liked. Anyone looking for info on this specific track will be disappointed. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a brief mention at Mario Kart 8 § Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Ca talk to me! 16:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with retargeting it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rising And Setting Of The Sun

[edit]

Could refer to a sunrise also. Classic WP:XY. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is a retarget to sun path acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kid named Finger

[edit]

Meme not mentioned in the target article, borderline WP:RASTONISH. We are not an indiscriminate collection of un-notable memes. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the delete vote in question: cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some regional honeys

[edit]

locations and their relations with unmentioned in the target. note that the sentence case redirects were all unsourced stubs, with two of them having been created by the same (now blocked) user cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page histories?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club Penguin Locations

[edit]

deleted twice before as unsourced, list still not present in the target cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh right, uhh... discussion 1, discussion 2. both resulted in deletion, and the current iteration was fully protected for around 17 years (that's enough time to become a shonen protagonist, sheesh) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club penquin

[edit]

CREATED BY A BLOCKED VANDAL AS AN UNSOURCED, EXTREMELY PROMOTIONAL STUB WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS FOR SOME REASON. implausible typo in qwerty keyboards, implausible misremembering of the logo as it uses a lowercase g cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ca talk to me! 16:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary the gadget guy

[edit]

unmentioned, was an unsourced stub cogsan (bricks, brown bricks) (build brown bricks with minecrap) 11:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Employment and Women

[edit]

Delete obscure or non-existent title which is not referred to in the target article. I can't find when this title might have been in existence if ever. -DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 (album) by matisse

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

WP:DICK

[edit]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, which WP:DICKERY already targets. I don't think that the current target of this redirect is okay nowadays, so i propose a retargeting. Unfortunately, since that redirect is fully protected, i was unable to complete the step 1 of WP:RFDHOWTO. 67.209.128.120 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IP. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 VP Debate

[edit]

Slightly implausible, and Americentric. Remsense ‥ 论 02:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

[edit]

Musha-gaeshi

[edit]

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

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

Zubon

[edit]

from ズボン (zubon), japanese for... trousers. no particular affinity with japanese. it's a chain of like 4 borrowed words, wow cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on the topic of the relisting, the pre-blar diff was an unsourced stub. really, nothing worth considering in this discussion cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.1415926535…

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

The Communiqué

[edit]

Sorry Trekkies, but there's no longer any mention of this mildly ambiguous phrase here, so delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyu

[edit]

Retarget to Taiwanese Hokkien. While "Taiyu" (臺語 台语 táiyǔ) literally translates to Taiwanese language, it is almost unambiguously used to mean Taiwanese Hokkien in Chinese. In the English Wikipedia, it is also the name of a temple (Taiyū-ji) and a village (Taiyū, Akita), so delete could also be the best course of action. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fork Knife

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forkknife

[edit]

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

  • Keep The creator, Sandstein, explained the reasoning on the redirect page: The use of the name "fork knife" has been reported [2]. Ca talk to me! 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also a plausible mondegreen. Ca talk to me! 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Masem, Redirect to Fortnite Battle Royale, where it is mentioned. I struggle to see how redirecting a to a linguistics article with the term as a passing example is helpful. We don't have redirects like breakhead(literal translation of Spanish word rompecabeza) targetting puzzle. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, Forkknife (without a space) unambigously refers to the fortnite meme. Ca talk to me! 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dvandva, where it's a literal translation of an example term. The reference to fortnite is unmentioned, and I expect anyone who wants information about that will be left at a loss, since the article has none, making the redirect inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

019

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

At the RfD that I closed yesterday as Delete, the nomination had asked the question "Should we .. retarget to Tyrrell 019", and while one opinion was that it is a decent option, other opinions were not in support. Jay 💬 15:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It is the only known page to have "019" in its title. 88.235.212.12 (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely non-specific. Let the searrch function do its work. Ca talk to me! 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy vehicle

[edit]

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

Camión

[edit]

no particular affinity towards asturian, galician, or spanish cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lymbriciform

[edit]

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

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

antiwhatever, helminth

[edit]

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

Worms, animals

[edit]

weird way to word a disambiguator, i'll say. created as an unsourced (inconsistently written!!) stub and blar'd in the span of 5 minutes cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Hagon

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, making this a misleading redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry

[edit]

It is from a redirection page and is not necessary as there is no history or importance for the affluent page. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:F.C. Porto-Sporting CP rivalry

[edit]

It is from a redirection page and is not necessary as there is no history or importance for the affluent page. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

It is from a redirection page and is not necessary as there is no history or importance for the affluent page. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Mark for deletion: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles and it might cause confusion, in addition to there being 6 other similar redirects. This redirect also looks more like a phrase than a title. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all of 44 Gabriel's nominations here on the merits, for completely failing to articulate an actual reason for deletion. It's perfectly plausible to write the word "and" rather than a dash of some sort in a football rivalry title, and there's no limit to the number of redirects to the same page. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Porto–Sporting CP rivalry

[edit]

Mark for deletion: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles anda it might cause confusion, in addition to there being 6 other similar redirects. This redirect also has implausible punctuation typos in the title. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've merged your identical nominations for the en-dashed and ascii-hyphen titles, as they should be considered together. In particular, note that if the en-dashed title is kept while the ascii-hyphen title is deleted, then the bot will re-create the ascii-hyphen title per the consensus I mentioned on some of your other nominations on this page. Anomie⚔ 14:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of 44 Gabriel's nominations here on the merits, for completely failing to articulate an actual reason for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry

[edit]

Mark for deletion: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles anda it might cause confusion. This redirect is exactly the same, which makes your search even more confusing, in addition to there being 6 other similar redirects. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F.C Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry

[edit]

Mark for deletion: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles anda it might cause confusion, in addition to there being 6 other similar redirects. This redirect also has implausible punctuation typos in the title. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't it be a good idea to clump those noms together?
also, you don't need to nominate the talk pages as well, that's automatically handled when the discussion is closed cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialization in bees

[edit]

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

floor sugar

[edit]

bröther, i crave the floor sugar. created as vandalism, but there's a really really small chance that i'm missing something that could be an actual synonym, so i think it narrowly dodges the g3 beam cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks (TV Series)

[edit]

Delete. Badly targeted and unnecessary given the existence of Fireworks (TV series) which correctly targets Fireworks (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to the dab. different capitalizations are fine, so long as it's not random or something (so, say, WikipediA is fine, but WikIPeDiA) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Abdelrahman

[edit]

Non-notable person who got mixed up in a murder investigation. See Murder of Giulio Regeni. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/04/egypt-murder-giulio-regeni says: "Relations between the Italian investigators and Cambridge University got off to a bad start when Abdelrahman declined to hand over her emails and text messages after the funeral. She also kept the police waiting for three hours, turning up for her interview at the police station at 10pm. Abdelrahman’s reluctance to hand over her personal data is understandable, given her background – she had grown up in Egypt under a military regime, when a person would never have given anything to the police if they could help it. Abdelrahman has chosen not to speak to the press since Regeni’s death, but told colleagues at Cambridge that she cooperated with the Italian police the day of the funeral.". For more see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Maha_Abdelrahman and Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge. I don't think there is a suitable target for this redirect. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Under WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE this person should not be identified by name in the Murder of Giulio Regeni article at all, rather by title. Once that certain edit is made ("that Regeni's tutor Maha Abdelrahman had followed" --> "that Regeni's tutor had followed"), all that we'll have here is a non-notable person whose name we've turned into a redirect to an article on a torture/murder. The numerous ways this violates WP:BLP does not require further explanation. Given the frequency this article seems to attract problematic editors seeking to grind an axe, it may be worth applying an IAR SALT to this page as well. This is a unique name and there's only the lowest of likelihoods it will ever be GF recreated. Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask for more good faith please. I do not remember, to be honest, why I created this redirect eight years ago (I probably had a good reason which I can not reproduce now, I create a lot of redirects anyway), but I do not like the notion that I am a problematic editor seeking to grind an axe. The topic is not within my editing interest, and I absolutely have no hidden agenda. Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Ymblanter, by "problematic editor" I was definitely not referring to you. The Murder of Giulio Regeni article and closely linked articles seem to attract a lot of drive-by IP editors that make a variety of questionable edits. I know you have no hidden agenda. Apologies if I worded this in a confusingly accusatorial way. Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I doubt salting will be necessary. Regeni was murdered in 2016. Polygnotus (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that that has been cleared up, @Ymblanter: do you agree the redirect can be removed? Polygnotus (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not particularly care. Judging from the edit summary, when I created it, Abdelrahman was mentioned in the target. Now, if she is not mentioned there, and there is consensus not to mention her (I did not check whether this is the case), then there is probably no need for a redirect. Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"if she is not mentioned there, and there is consensus not to mention her" I think the issue is that neither of these things are true. She is mentioned once in passing (and probably shouldn't be) and there is no consensus to mention her (nor is there a consensus not to do so --- it's not been a topic of discussion). Either way, though, she's a not notable, private figure whose name is currently being redirected to an article about a brutal torture-murder. The pageview analysis doesn't seem to indicate this is something people are seeking out. Chetsford (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not really any useful information on this person here. Oppose salting. I don't see any compelling reason to remove her name from the article, so I would be against removing it, but this redirect has no use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThrough News

[edit]

A recent AfD closed with consensus to redirect the page to Party for Socialism and Liberation, but I think that refining this to the more precise link of Party for Socialism and Liberation#BreakThrough News (as proposed during the discussion by WikiShovel) would be an improvement, as that section directly covers BTN. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hume

[edit]

Redirect representing an unsuccessful candidate in a political party primary with no other claim of notability. Problem is, however, that there are three articles linking here expecting somebody else, an award-nominated Canadian journalist and writer with a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the undisambiguated name. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

[edit]

Clarissa: Or the History of A Young

[edit]

Delete. The redirect isn't usable as an actual link or an incomplete search term. Tevildo (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The full title is quite long, but this a nonsensical place to truncate it. Ca talk to me! 23:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. the average reader can finish the title, i'll put faith in their cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The History of a Young Girl

[edit]

Delete per criterion 2 (confusing), or retarget to The Diary of a Young Girl, which is a much closer match to the redirect name than the current target. Tevildo (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on Google and DDG gave me a list of completely unrelated, nonotable books. Ca talk to me! 23:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Kabaddi Association

[edit]

I suggest to delete these. Neither association is mentioned at the target page. These seem to be the former names of defunct or renamed/reorganised associations. There are already various confusingly named organisations involved in the sport of kabaddi. See the World Kabaddi and Kabaddi World Cup disambiguation pages, for example.

As best I can tell, the National Kabaddi Association did exist (founded in 1992) and is defunct. It is only linked in the articles about two teams (from Scotland and England) that formerly belonged to it. There also appears to be a "National Kabaddi Association of Ontario" (Facebook page here) and a "National Kabaddi Association of Canada" (Facebook page here). There is one mention of "National Kabaddi Association" in Kabaddi in Canada (about an unfortunate event in 2023), but I think the Canadian associations are different from the earlier association that had a national team from Scotland and a national team from England.

I would be tempted to think that "International Kabaddi Association" refers to the International Kabaddi Federation (IKF), but it doesn't seem to. It is only linked in two articles. One of those talks about a player in an event held by the association in 1993, which is more than a decade before the IKF was established. The other one provides no clear indication of why it is linked.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal weapon

[edit]

I do not think the current target of service pistol is the correct target. Unsure where it should be targeted or whether it should even exist as a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mex-Mex

[edit]

obscure synonym. results gave me sneks (really cute ones at that), keyboards, and assorted restaurant names. as noted in the creation, an explanation is provided in tex-mex cuisine in houston, though in passing, and i don't think it'd be better off retargeted there. as is, it might be a somewhat plausible misremembering of tex-mex, but i'm not really too keen on that cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oberon in fiction

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny country

[edit]

what? originally redirected to sahara, but... the sun shines on at least two other countries. maybe even more, i'm not entirely sure about brazil. i think the creator realized a little too late that sahara wasn't a country cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

right, yeah, should note. results gave me stock photos, some aggressively american radio station, and poorly resized images of sonic the hedgehog. not in that list are deserts cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017 bridge incident

[edit]

No clue what this is supposed to mean in context to the target. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. on the vague side, even if i know exactly what it's supposed to mean in the context of the target cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⚭/equaric unicodes

[edit]

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

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

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

Cilla Single

[edit]

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

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

  • Comment surprisingly (to me) this seems to be attested despite very limited online hits: Franklin, Benjamin; Smyth, Albert H. (1905). The writings of Benjamin Franklin. New York, London: Macmillan Co.; Macmillan & Co. OCLC 1158474884. Retrieved 2024-11-28. (on page 186). I'm very unsure how someone would end up searching for this term without knowing it was a pseudonym of Franklin's however.

Benjamin Franklin (swim coach)

[edit]

HUH??? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this baffling redirect. I genuinely can't imagine someone typing this in Wikipedia. Benjamin Franklin swimming perhaps, but swim coach in brackets? I struggle to imagine a single instance where there would be discussion of Benjamin Franklin's swimming activities that does not point out extremely early and strongly that this is the one and same Benjamin Franklin. Franklin is the primary topic for Benjamin Franklin and I don't see his swimming activities as being significant enough to "block" this page from a future notable Benjamin Franklin who is notable as a swim coach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazback (talk • contribs) 2024-11-27 (UTC)
  • Delete per deletion arguments above. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody above, essentially. This is not a useful or likely search term. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 AP Poll

[edit]

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

Unmentioned Pikmin 2 caves

[edit]

These caves aren't mentioned in the target article (and weren't at the time the Hole of Heroes one, which was always a redirect, was created). As for the other two, they began as articles on their respective caves (see here and here for what the articles looked like before they were turned into redirects) until Combination redirected them to the main article in November 2006 (when they actually were mentioned before Abryn removed them with this edit in October 2008 to trim down the page) because, in their summary for the Submerged Castle one, there [was] absolutely no reason for this to be kept separate from the Pikmin 2 article. Unlike Dream Den, which is worth keeping because that cave actually is mentioned in the article and has plot relevance, I'm not sure we need to keep these redirects when their respective caves aren't mentioned in the target article. Regards, SONIC678 01:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DuPage 3

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Goodness

[edit]

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

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

Athletic Field (Seattle)

[edit]

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

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


November 26

[edit]

Perry Smith (murder)

[edit]

The word "murder" is not a synonym of "murderer". Perry Smith (murderer) already exists. This page has a significant number of pageviews, most likely because it appears in the search suggestions when typing "Perry Smith"; Perry Smith (murderer) does not (at least on my environment, Firefox 128 on macOS 12). – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 21:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only redirect to the biography of a murderer of this form. A Quarry search for page titles containing "(murder)" found only this redirect, Black widow (murder), and 187 (murder); the latter two are not redirects to murderers. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 21:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chowda

[edit]

it cannot be understated how hard i laughed seeing this, my entire head hurts. created as a phonetic spelling of the boston accent, though results are torn between some english product (or is it a brand?), some unnotable musician, and the character from the tv series, and i still doubt a case like this would be worth keeping. created by a user who was blocked for "ridiculous redirects", so there's that too cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it's a legitimate, though informal, regional term, but maybe change the target article to clam chowder. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Boy Who Knew Too Much (The Simpsons)#Plot, a pretty well known gag from the series, probably what inspired the redirect. Although not explicitly spelled as "chowda" in the article, it is mentioned "with a Boston accent", which is how that would typically be done. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Boy Who Knew Too Much (The Simpsons)#Plot, per the IP above. BarntToust 21:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or as suggested by Jessintime retarget to clam chowder. Very surprised by the suggestions to link to an episode of The Simpsons. A quick search on Google Books shows quite a few hits for chowda, and when excluding its use as a name it is almost always in lieu of chowder: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]... Shazback (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a cutesy spelling used in products and recipe names, or in dialog-written-with-accent to evoke the New England accent, to which clam chowder is closely associated. This could be done for any word ending in -er, but we don't do that, because it would be silly to do so. On the other hand, we do have some material that talks about this very particular use of the accented word, as an actual plot point in something. I think the retarget to the Simpsons episode is by far the better option. Barring that, deletion would be my next choice. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Clam chowder or Keep, slight preference for retargeting. This is a very commonly used eye dialect spelling of a word with affinity for the subject. WP:RFOR applies with only a minor stretch to apply it to a relevant accent as opposed to a completely separate language-- clam chowder is in fact strongly associated with Boston, as the article text confirms. The association is strong enough I'm debating whether the clam chowder article actually should mention this eye dialect spelling... I have few doubts that a reference for it could be found. Is it WP:DUE? Maybe... maybe. But certainly there's enough to have a redirect at the very least. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the record, I strongly oppose a retarget to Clam chowder per WP:RASTONISH. And to address the point above, eye dialect redirects should generally be avoided; very often, they cover up more specific content that a search might reveal. But in this case, we actually have something appropriate to redirect to. If someone wants to look up information about chowder, they're just going to search for "chowder". On the other hand, if someone wants to look up information about the gag from the Simpsons episode, this is a wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more useful search term if you don't know what episode it's from. Reward the searchers looking for specific information using a plausible search term. Punish those using a misspelling. However, in this case, it's a very mild punishment, since upon reading the linked-to section, even if someone didn't know what it was, they'd realize what it was. You could even put in a hatnote if you really wanted (although I think that would be a little overkill). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My view is that WP:RASTONISH would on the contrary lead to opposing a redirect to a specific gag in one episode of The Simpsons. Wikipedia aims to have a broad readership, and there are many, many more cases of chowda being used to refer to chowder (see above, also in brand names or 'routine' mentions in travel guides, recipe names etc. in print or online). Saying that the reader can just infer from the plot summary of the article that chowda is chowder with a Boston accent does not sit well with me, and quite frankly if I searched something I saw in a cookbook or travel guide on wikipedia and were redirected in such a manner I would be WP:RASTONISHED. Shazback (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, retargeting to clam chowder or a TV gag is too specific. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what even makes clam chowder a possible target here, especially more fitting than chowder? honestly, i'm also against keeping at this point because, simply put, we're not a boston-centered wiki (at least not yet, just you wait...) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 10:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every hit on a quick google search for "chowda" relates to clam chowder, not the generic chowder. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nearly all of the clam chowder-related results i could find seem to refer to "clam chowda" (notice the specific use of the word "clam"), a product of a not very notable brand named "boston chowda". the only others are products from even less notable brands or miscellaneous restaurants. does google think i'm a tourist? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi persecution of Jews

[edit]

Persecution of Jews § Nazi Germany might be a better target. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing enhancement

[edit]

There is no reason that sentencing enhancements should re-direct to US hate crime laws. Notwithstanding the fact that this is US centric, there are a plethora of other factors which might go into sentencing enhancements that aren't hate crimes, such as the use of a deadly weapon, or crimes against children. This would be a good candidate for a standalone article. Lenny Marks (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; should that article be at sentencing enhancement or somewhere else? I know that mandatory sentencing may be a related concept in some cases. Arlo James Barnes 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to be honest; At the moment, there doesn't appear to be an appropriate section in Sentence (law), but I'm not sure if it would be best as its own article or part of a broader one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the current target was chosen because hate crime laws are often used as a sentencing enhancement tool... but the topic is notable enough (in that you can find a lot of writing about it out there) that I agree it could be worthy of an article in and of itself. A section under Sentence (law) should be added as a minimum. Maybe both-- a short summary in Sentence (law) and an article on its own with more detail. This gets talked about a lot in reliable sources. Fieari (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Música mexicana

[edit]

Delete both as clear cases of WP:FORRED; they're sum-of-parts phrases with no link to the target other than it being a language spoken there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.139.154.158 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Buffalo Bills season

[edit]

No relevant information at the target, making it a misleading redirect. WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable Care Act (version 2)

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moved without redirct

Hut-on-the-rock

[edit]

This location may be a somewhat important one in the first Harry Potter book (it's where Hagrid gives Harry his letter and tells him he's a wizard); but it isn't mentioned in the target article, the book's article, or even at Places in Harry Potter. The redirect started out as an article about the place in August 2003 (see the last article version here) before it was redirected a little less than two weeks later to the nonexistent Petunia Evans Dursley (which I'm not sure really existed), and then to Dursley (a town in England from which J. K. Rowling got the Dursleys' surname; to be fair, the article did mention the Dursleys below the information about Dursley for a time before that was removed later), and then stayed there for over three years before finally going to Dursley family (where the Hut-on-the-Rock wasn't mentioned even at the time of redirection). From there, the history consists of changing the target (mostly fixing double redirects) and The Transhumanist adding a {{R to section}} template in 2018. Because of this, I think this redirect should be deleted, as the Hut-on-the-Rock isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia (and hasn't been for many years). Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 16:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Jew arrest warrants

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

Wikipaedo

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G10

Hawaiian style

[edit]

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

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

Australia.

[edit]

per other redirects with pointless periods. has incoming links in some user pages, evidently all by accident cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Flight 5001

[edit]

No sources showing this flight number was ever associated with the target page. Tube·of·Light 09:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cnada

[edit]

Typo with random "a" missing. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X in in Y, part 2

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

Ac/DC

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. while the inconsistent capitalization hurts me as much as people who use "it's" as the possessive form of "it" (do y'all say "hi's"?), it's not really implausible in any way. at this point, it's kind of not recent anymore, so there goes that, i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no big opinion on retargeting to the dab, by the way cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Segmented Crawbster

[edit]

This is the boss of the Cavern of Chaos, who used to have an article (see here for the article) for about eight minutes on December 29, 2009 before it was retargeted to the article for breaching WP:NOTHOWTO. The enemy isn't mentioned in the target article, and it wasn't at the time its article was turned into a redirect, potentially making this also fall afoul of WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm leaning towards deletion, but I'm open to other outcomes. Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 04:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. should be a clear-cut case of cruft cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 NASCAR Cup Series

[edit]

It seems WP:TOOSOON to know much about this season, since it isn't mentioned in the target article. A Google search does bring up some articles with predictions and details so far about the season, but I'm not 100% sure that really warrants a redirect to the current target or creation of an article. As such a situation, I'm torn between deleting and stubifying this redirect, but I'm open to other courses of action if possible, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about it. Regards, SONIC678 04:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's easy. just grab a time machine and a gun, kill chronos to death, take his place, and tape the years together!
or delete per nom, i guess. we can wait until at least late 2025 for articles about 2026, since predictions alone aren't worth much in this case cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cuphead speedrunning records

[edit]

The game Cuphead is not mentioned in that article, let alone a list of records. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One (Psygnosis video game series)

[edit]

Unused redirect. Formula One (Studio Liverpool video game series) is barely notable enough as disambiguation, and the Psygnosis one was not notable enough for any use. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gros tournois

[edit]

Reasons for deletion #5 - incorrect / nonsensical. The Gros tournois is a French coin instituted by Louis IX in the 13th century, not part of the Italian coinage tradition, making the redirect not useful (either requiring inclusion of French coinage information under Tornesel which refers specifically to Italian coins or - as is currently the case - omitting completely to mention the gros tournois in the article, making the redirect less useful for people who want to know about the gros tournois. See w:fr:Gros tournois (& other language wikipedias). This page is linked to by few pages, most notably Groat (English coin), French franc and Groschen, where all three state it is a French coin, so this redirect would be WP:ASTONISHING for readers since the redirect target's content appears to contradict the initial context of the link. Shazback (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was created in 2008 when there were preciously few relevant articles on such topics, so that was a best-effort approximation. I am not in favour of deletion, but if OP knows about it, why not simply make a short article out of it? That would solve the incongruence and serve our readers. Constantine ✍ 15:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I dislike creating articles directly into mainspace - in particular when I am far, far from knowledgeable on the topic. I have added creating this article to the list of things I would like to do, but I think in the meantime it is reasonable to not keep a "wrong" redirection. Shazback (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zirabagtaria

[edit]

Per the previous deletion discussion. (Not G4-able since it's a new target.) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This user created article Kimberellomorpha but either way that should be deleted as invalid taxon.(Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Precambrian_chitons_and_another_reports_by_Mark_McMenamin) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

[edit]

Cicindela redirects

[edit]

Subgenera, or species for that matter, should not redirect back to the genus unless they are significantly discussed there. Suggest retargetting to the appropriate sections of List of Cicindela species, where they are discussed, or deleting. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 23:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speaking as the creator of these redirects, I have no personal preference here, but I point out that these two redirects of mine were originally redirects to Calomera and Cicindelidia, which were at the time separate articles from Cicindela. Also, these redirects are still linked to by the articles Cicindela littoralis and Cicindela floridana as well as the template Template:Taxonomy/Cicindela (Cicindelidia) Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Won

[edit]

Redirect seems to be getting a few pageviews, however Trump also won in 2016, so i suggest either deleting it or convert it to disambiguation. Airtransat236 (talk | contribs) 22:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't really see the point of a "Trump Won" page even as a redirect
Artem...Talk 22:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This title is extremely vague and unamenable to disambiguation. Ca talk to me! 05:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a retarget per Michael Aurel below Ca talk to me! 00:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are a lot of things this could refer to (court cases, elections, debates, etc.). User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong retarget per the above reply by @Michael Aurel. I think that this is my first time ever prefixing a !vote with "Strong". I had come across this redirect a few days ago and was visiting to restore its former target when I realized that it has been listed for discussion. –Gluonz talk contribs 22:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paw, Paw

[edit]

The word "paw" doesn't appear anywhere in the target article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:434F:7EAA:14AD:DD9B (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Paw Paw (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently Paw Paw was one of her dogs, which (surprise surprise) aren't important enough to mention by name in her bio article. There's no reason why it should have had the comma in there in the first place, nor is there any particular reason to keep this around for any of the various other uses, none of which make any sense with a comma inserted. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The comma makes this very implausible to target anywhere. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not sure if there's any good target in the dab page. --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Paw Paw (disambiguation). It got 7 hits this year, might as well send those hits to something plausible. I disagree that a comma is implausible for all of the targets at that dab. I mean, sure, a comma is not ACCURATE for any of the targets, but accurate is not the same thing as plausible. People make mistakes, after all. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    7 hits in a year is background noise. Arguing for a retarget is the same as arguing for a delete, and then for the creation of a new redirect....a creation that no one would ever reasonably make, because it'd be useless. We don't need to bend over backwards to try to find a home for wayward, useless redirects. Nothing of value is lost from deletion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retargeting is not delete in RfD. But in AfD, a redirect in general is considered a deletion, so this redirect could be seen as deleted already, following your logic. Web-julio (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At RfD, supporting retargeting by no means implies support of deletion of the original redirect. Someone giving their position as retargeting is not saying anything as to whether they think the original redirect ought to be deleted or kept in a hypothetical world without the choice of an alternative target; all they are saying is that the alternative target is a better target than the original one. – Michael Aurel (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. A choice to retarget is equivalent to deleting, and then making a new redirect with a new target (barring page history concerns, which isn't really an issue here). Just because a target is better doesn't mean it's good enough to go out of our way to create anew. Unlike articles, deletion of redirects is relatively harmless, since they can always be recreated with very little effort if needed. And in this case, as has been demonstrated, this is a particularly useless redirect. No one in their right mind would make this redirect, hence, it should be deleted, even if you did identify a technically "better" target. "Better" ≠ "good enough". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If "X" is a redirect to "Y", and at RfD I support retargeting "X" to "Z", all this means is that I think "Z" is a better target than "Y". I might still think that, if "Z" weren't a possible target, "X" pointing to "Y" would be a perfectly fine redirect. This is all I said, and nothing about this is "not true". – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    all this means is that I think "Z" is a better target than "Y". I might still think that, if "Z" weren't a possible target, "X" pointing to "Y" would be a perfectly fine redirect.. It might in other cases, but no one here has suggested that the current target is reasonable. My line of reasoning here is under the assumption that it's between a choice to delete or retarget, which this one pretty clearly is. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I was only speaking in general, as indicated by me starting my comment with At RfD. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (non-admin comment) Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy and cheap

[edit]

...really? the target section currently exists, sure, but any mentions of this description are unsourced, in passing, and seemingly unnecessary. honestly, i really can't think of a way this redirect wouldn't be at the very least extremely surprising cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Trilemma#The project-management trilemma. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Project management triangle (linked from the trilemma article) might be a better target. Tevildo (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a little late to note, but i'm kinda not following that. "quick" doesn't necessarily mean "easy", and it's still only two thirds of the Funny Triangle™ cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Delete per nom, not sufficiently close to the canonical formulation to be useful. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERNETPROCTOL

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

MeTV Plus

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

Swing the hairy ones

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a swedish dictionary. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Re

[edit]

...Re (film) was moved away from this title after a March 2016 discussion; a followup April 2016 RfD ended without consensus. It was then boldly retargeted to the disambiguation page Re in May 2016, with an explanation on the talk page, but this was reverted in 2018. I personally think it should redirect to Re (or else the film should be moved back to this title), for the reasons laid out at WP:MISPLACED, but the history here is complicated enough that I want to make sure there's consensus for this change. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the film here at it appears to be the only thing called this per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Either Move ...Re (film) back to ...Re (in which case, a hatnote to the dab page will suffice), or move ...Re (film) to Re (film), if you're not happy with the stylization being a part of either the article title or the running text. In either case, the current redirect should point to the film as an apparently typical stylization at the very least, and since nothing on the dab page would be prepended with 3 dots. The current situation is silly. If the current redirect is pointing to the film, then the film should be sitting at the base title. I don't really understand how the move discussion came to the conclusion it did. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTTOI

[edit]

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


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

Andrew Gower (programmer)

[edit]

Previous discussions:

Although possibly justified previously, this redirect is now inappropriate. Despite founding the company Jagex and launching RuneScape being his most well known achievement, Andrew Gower (programmer) is not synonymous with Jagex, having left their board of directors over 14 years ago.

His current game Brighter Shores has no involvement with Jagex at all, but everywhere that Andrew's name is linked on Wikipedia (confusingly, including on the Brighter Shores page), it points back to Jagex. Brighter Shores was released in early access relatively recently, on 6 November 2024, seeing signs of early success.

Brighter Shores' full name is "Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores" (displaying that name on boot), in the same style as "Sid Meier's Civilization". It is likely that a person might search for "Andrew Gower" to find out who the title is referencing, and get redirected to Jagex, a company that has no involvement whatsoever with Brighter Shores.

At a minimum, I would recommend that this redirect no longer target the Jagex page. However, it would also be inappropriate if the redirect were changed to Brighter Shores, or a potential Fen Research article/redirect (currently a red link), since when Andrew Gower (programmer) is referenced in the context of discussing RuneScape on Wikipedia, it would then redirect to his latest project instead of an article about the programmer, which is not very expected.

Per WP:RFD#DELETE, my opinion is that this redirect violates conditions 2 and 10.

  • It has potential to cause confusion that Andrew Gower is still affiliated with Jagex, and that Brighter Shores is a Jagex game.
  • The current target article Jagex "contains virtually no information on the subject", and as evidenced by the redirect's long edit history, "could plausibly be expanded into an article".

Per WP:RFD#KEEP, the redirect should also not be out-right deleted, since it includes a "potentially useful page history" for an article about a person who has made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

I'd recommend that an article about the programmer Andrew Gower be created in place of this redirect, similar to other well-known game programmers with multiple projects (such as Sid Meier, John Carmack, etc.).

— Hubcapp (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim level

[edit]

Trim level → Trim#Transport – The phrase "Trim level" is also used in aviation as a command given in the cockpit to trim the aircraft to a level flight attitude using the Trim wheel to move the Trim tab, so this is an ambiguous term and should redirect to the DAB page of Trim#Transport. Raladic (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adimo

[edit]

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

Giant ground sloth

[edit]

Megatherium is tied with Eremotherium in size (with Lestodon being not much smaller), so this isn't an unambiguous redirect. In the academic literature, "giant ground sloth" is used for basically any sloth of considerable size, regardless as to whether they are truly elephantine (e.g. [19] [20]). Many of the current redirect uses have nothing to do with Megatherium, making this redirect misleading. I would suggest redirecting to ground sloth Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to ground sloth per nomination. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tradiční Lovecký salám

[edit]

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

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

Mortazza

[edit]

results gave me two conflicting definitions: dishes involving mortadella, like pizza mortazza and mortazza sandwiches, or one specific dish that happens to involve mortadella... said dish seemingly boiling down to "random stuff with mortadella, i guess". not mentioned in the target or wiktionary, and seems to be an obscure synonym for something else cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Openptail g

[edit]

is it supposed to be a misinput? p is close to - in qwerty keyboards, but that doesn't seem like a plausible mistake cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nardog. Considering that Menchi created Open-tail g four minutes after this one, I think that was probably the intended title for the redirect. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep In 8 years, a total of 62 hits, which is not very much, and this looks like a low impact redirect. It's also harmless, and not ambiguous. Would wikipedia be improved for those 62 people if we lacked this redirect? There's no reason to go around deleting redirects out of some sort of sense of tidiness, that's what WP:CHEAP is all about. We needn't, and shouldn't, go around creating every single typo possible, but I just don't see a reason to go out of our way to clean them up either if they help someone and don't interfere with anything. Fieari (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

[edit]

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

Struck per WP:ARBPIA's extendedconfirmed restriction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi. I see that you have registered today and the only edit you did id on this page. Do you mind to elaborate your point? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge what little there is, place a redirect if really necessary, but I think due to how general the title is, that due to WP:RECENT within a few months it will be back here to be deleted due to lack of precision. TiggerJay (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge, as many RS call it this way:
  1. The Jerusalem Post (1, 2, 3, 4)
  2. The Times of Israel (1, 2, 3, 4)
  3. Reuters (1 - quote)
  4. JSN (1)
  5. New York Post] (1 - quote)
  6. The New York Sun (1, 2)
  7. BBC (1, 2, 3)
  8. Israel Hayom (1)
  9. Arutz Sheva (1, 2)
  10. The Jewish Chronicle (1)
  11. The Spectator (1)
  12. The Forward (1)
  13. Ynet (1)
  14. The Jewish Press (1)
  15. Newsmax (1, 2)
  16. Legal Insurrection (1)
  17. Townhall (1)
  18. Israel Today (1)
  19. And more.
With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these sources are not calling it a pogrom in their own voice and are simply quoting people describing the event as such, or just mention it in the headline (WP:HEADLINES). The only sources that are asserting it was a pogrom are 6: Townhall (WP:MREL), Legal insurrection (not a RS, looks like a glorified blog), Israel National News (not a RS, it's an Israeli Zionist media network), NYSun (a conservative news website known for dishonest reporting), a blog from ToI (WP:NEWSBLOG) and finally, and unsurprisingly, Jpost (not precisely known for fact checking and currently under discussion re: their reliability). - Ïvana (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

LGBT in Chile

[edit]

Retarget to LGBTQ in Chile for wp:consistency. Regardless of the RM outcome, if moved, a bot automatically retargets it to where LGBTQ in Chile will be retargeted. Also see WP:CONSUB and WP:STATUSQUO. --MikutoH talk! 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Lewisguile (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to LGBTQ in Chile – omitting the "Q" doesn't indicate a different topic. I think this could have been done boldly, by the way. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I questioned myself when doing this boldly is that retargeting to a DAB requires the links to it be changed, which has several. --MikutoH talk! 23:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

[edit]

Next Singaporean presidential election

[edit]

The 2023 presidential election has passed, and is hence no longer the next presidential election in Singapore. As there is no substantial information on the current next election to place into an article, I would like to propose instead that this page be deleted. VoicefulBread66 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantoöccipital articulations

[edit]

These pages clearly derive from typos as the character ö does not appear in latin and these terms are not used in literature, see also this discussion on one of their talk pages. I believe that if they were recent pages, they would fulfill WP:R3 from the speedy deletion criteria, but as its multiple old pages, I'm listing them here. Since entering a term with the diaresis diacritic does not seem to matter for Wikipedia search unless there is a specific page with it in its name, these redirects do not bear any value and should be deleted. The respective redirect or article pages without diacritics seem to already exist. Withdrawn nomination, see below. YuniToumei (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page histories of Anterior atlantoöccipital membrane and Posterior atlantoöccipital membrane?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ap (ghost)

[edit]

I'm not sure this use of "Ap" is legitimate. The article refers to "The word អាប (Ahp/Aap)..." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bank Black

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. C F A 23:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Scream (Greek TV miniseries)

[edit]

Weird cross project redirect to the Greek Wikipedia. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:4786:8BAE:11B2:46A7 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under-16 and Under-17 teams

[edit]

Delete all:

Credit to Maiō T. who created a useful list of such redirects. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 18:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 NFL team redirects

[edit]

WP:TOOSOON, no relevant info at targets, making these redirects misleading. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that another team season redirect for the same season was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_22#2026_Houston_Texans_season. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent

[edit]

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

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

Template:NWHL profile

[edit]

Same as Template:PHF Profile. rm this redirect page. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 24. MikeVitale 16:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: once a template is deleted, all redirects to it are also deleted, so no need for RfD to get involved. Gonnym (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Edwards

[edit]

Ambiguous title. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AR-M100390

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

Bus Testing and Research Center

[edit]

Quite ambiguous title not discussed at target. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does discuss the Altoona Bus Testing and Research Center, which is a part of the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute which is frequently mentioned in articles discussing public transit. Perhaps it'd be better to redirect from Altoona Bus Testing and Research Center. 42-BRT (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be unambiguous. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Puffery inline

[edit]

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

Illustrative aid

[edit]

Quite ambiguous title and not discussed at target. Seems to also have a legal meaning, based on search results. Delete as ambigous. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

The women's tournament is not discussed at target – misleading to the reader. Delete per WP:REDYES. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria national under-16 and under-17 basketball team

[edit]

WP:XY – the under-17 team is not discussed. Also, what about the women's team for the same age bracket? Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel).

[edit]

Implausible typo to add punctuation to the end (the period key is quite far away from the 0 key). Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Pilipinas Super League season

[edit]

The season doesn't seem to have started, and the target gives very little information to the reader. Delete per WP:REDYES. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Stopes Myanmar

[edit]

Marie Stopes Myanmar is not discussed at the target. Seems like a WP:REDYES situation. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi to Heaven

[edit]

Not seeing this used as an alternative name or translation. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator seems to be CU blocked. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrajectine Communion

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

The RfD previous discussion ended up on deciding on a soft redirect with my approval. However, I am having second thoughts on this Ultrajectine Communion redirect that I had bundled with Ultrajectine in this previous RfD.

I do not think a reader searching for "Ultrajectine Communion" will be satisfied with being led to the Wiktionary link to the Latin word for 'of Utrecht'. "Ultrajectine Communion" is not an used expression, and it is not used to refer to the Union of Utrecht.

Thus, I propose this redirect be deleted. Veverve (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mate tea (drink)

[edit]

Mate tea is also a drink, so this seems confusing. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to mate cocido per nom. for better or worse, i know the exact demographic of this redirect, and they'd actually want both results. still, mate cocido is slightly more accurate in the context of places that aren't brazil, so as far as this wiki cares, it should redirect to that one cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Mate cocido as {{r avoided double redirect}} and {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}} of Mate tea. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Dutch general election

[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Refine or retarget? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kikurage

[edit]

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

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

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

MOS:JEW

[edit]

Delete: Same as "MOS:ASTRO" last month. Incorrect and confusing redirects that declare this WP:PROJPAGE essay to be a part of the WP:MOS guidelines. (The page's misnaming with "/Manual of Style" instead of "/Style advice" is being addressed separately in an RM.) Deleting these shortcut will be consistent with prior deletions of "MOS:" namespace (formerly pseudo-namespace) shortcuts, and other shortcuts with "MOS" in them, that were going to wikiproject essays and the like. See also the page-creation editnotice: "This is a page in the MOS namespace, which should only be used for shortcuts to the manual of style."

The potential for mischief with such shortcuts is high, because editors who encounter them "cited" in talk-page arguments are highly likely to trust that they are MoS guidelines with the authority of community consensus acceptance, instead of being pre-WP:PROPOSAL essays by a small number of editors with little broader editorial-community input. The advice in the page might even mostly be good, but it is not (yet?) part of MoS and should not masquerade as such. Some of its wording has been a bit ranty and even leaning in an us-vs.-them direction, and ironically riddled with MoS-compliance failures (some of this I cleaned up in a particular section [23], but it needs a lot more work). The page really has not seen much substantive improvement in over a decade.

I've created a new WP:JUDAISMSTYLE shortcut for this page, and a WP:JESUSCHRIST one (in place of "MOS:JESUS" for the "Christ"-related material's anchor point in the page). The latter doesn't really doesn't belong in this page, as it is not a Judaism matter. The advice there is correct, however, and should probably be moved into a guideline page, likely WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Honorifics (as now proposed here), at which point an "MOS:" shortcut for it could be reinstituted. These seem to be the only shortcuts to this page. I'm skeptical that "JEW" in such constructions is a good idea, as it can have conflicting interpretations. But regular editors in what wikiproject might want "WP:JEW/STYLE" to go along with other subpage shortcuts they use.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Notified: WT:WikiProject Judaism, WT:MOS. Reason: Essay is part of that wikiproject. WT:MOS is the central place for concerns about MoS's maintenance. Did not notify Judaism, or Christianity (for MOS:JESUS), or Religion subpages of WP:Deletion_sorting, because internal essay and guideline shortcuts are not pertinent to encyclopedic coverage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are not MoS pages. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Night

[edit]

Since the now blocked sockpuppet TeapotsOfDoom nominated this redirect four days earlier and it was speedily kept per WP:BE, I'm reopening the discussion because I'm not really sure if it has a particular connection to Rihanna. The closest I could find via a Google search was part of the lyrics for "Goodnight Gotham" (which contains a sample of "Only If for a Night" by Florence and the Machine), but other than that, I'm not sure if it warrants a redirect to Rihanna's page, since 1) it's also part of the titles and/or lyrics for countless other songs and 2) it's a partial title match for multiple other articles and/or redirects (so I'm not sure where, if anywhere, is appropriate to retarget this). Delete this unless someone can provide a justification or a suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 05:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backstory on why this redirect exists in the first place... this redirect was originally created in February 2015 when a snippet of what was then known as "A Night" was included in a Dior advertisement.
At the time, the song was unreleased (it wouldn't officially be released until January 2016 on Anti (album)), but "A Night" is the official title that the song was registered under in the ASCAP database, so that's how it was referred until the final title was revealed to be "Goodnight Gotham" upon its official release.
If kept, the target should be changed to Anti (album).
[24] RachelTensions (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Male protagonist bingo

[edit]

Unhelpful redirect that sounds a lot like the title of some Tumblr meme. Not relavent or mentioned in the article. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RubRub

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

Shen an calhar

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Flag of North Yemen

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

ハンマーブロス

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow target per cogsan, and give the Japanese in the article. It's entirely reasonable to expect various native or non-native speakers of English who are big fans of this culture-spanning franchise to run into Japanese references to characters, so we should help them. It's pretty conventional with regard to translated media for us to give original other-language names of characters and things, especially since various academic or other sources may refer to the original-language version or a translation or both at once (and might even be constrasting them, if significant changes were made beyond name-rendering).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PKS 1402-012

[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ro (antigen)

[edit]

We need an expert to determine if these are correctly targeted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of consensus, redirect to the Antigens section is also a good outcome. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both per Synpath. The current 2nd redir is clearly and error, and there's no clear reason to not go to the section specifically about the antigens. I guess I could live with both targeting the bare Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies link, but being vague like that doesn't seem helpful to the readership.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indy HeroClix (heroclix)

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chingisid

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kentuchy

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

凧

[edit]

mentioned, but not directly. the article mentions 祝い凧 (iwai tako, or celebration kite) as a funny thing japan does to celebrate stuff, but not 凧 (tako, or kite). opinions? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFOR, this subject does have some affinity for Japanese given the history of kites. Furthermore, the kanji does appear in the article-- no, not solo, but 祝い just means celebration, and is a very simple grammatical adjective; it does not make the combination 祝い凧 a unique and different word. Fieari (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh right yeah while we're at it, should i create 祝い凧 after this is done? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Tianna

[edit]

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

  • Weak delete This site and other, seemingly less reliable, sources indicate that "Lu Tianna" is a Chinese-language name adopted by or used to refer to Gillibrand. There is precedent to keep these sorts of names, as seen in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31#Foreign language redirects to Kamala Harris. But, unlike Harris's Chinese names, I don't find evidence of widespread use. I am willing to reconsider if evidence that this is indeed commonly used by Chinese speakers to refer to Gillibrand exists. Note that Lu Tian Na, which is used here by the New York Times, exists as well. I am not a Chinese speaker so cannot say if the number of words makes a difference. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if this is treated like a Chinese name, then the variant spellings available from "Lu Tianna" would be "Lu Tian-na", "Lu Tian-Na", "Lu Tian Na" -- and the flipped forms "Tianna Lu", "Tian-na Lu", "Tian Na Lu" -- NYT uses one of the styles you can do with the syllables. In the PRC, the preferred form would have a single "word" to represent a name, so "Lu Tianna" if Lu is the surname and Tianna is the given name. This isn't the preferred style used in Hong Kong or Taiwan though. That is dependent and independent on romanization method, as some people style their names differently from the romanization method's preferred form. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Her Chinese name is known by the Chinese-language world, used by Chinese-language media. I can search a bunch of news article if I search on Google by her Chinese name "陸天娜" [25][26][27]. The name Lu Tianna (陆天娜; 陸天娜) is used by herself, pretty irrelevant to her English name. Lu Tianna, Lu Tian Na, Lu Tian-Na, Lu Tian-na are essentially the same, just with or without space or hyphen. It is just the difference of transliteration, all of them are used to some degree (and actually "Lu Tianna" is the most conventional transliteration). However, the transliteration is not a conventional way to refer to her, not in Chinese media or English media. This makes me doubt but I am still leaning that it is more useful than harmful. Sun8908 Talk 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not mentioned at target. If you have to do this level of OR to justify a redirect, then just don't. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Türkiye II

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enteractive

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Interactive (disambiguation) as a plausible misspelling (vowels that reduce to schwa can easily be mistaken for each other). Fieari (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a schwa though; it's a stressed short i. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My local dialect/accent definitely reduces it to a schwa sometimes, nearly dropping it altogether. 'nteractive. 'nternet. I don't think this is uncommon. Fieari (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not totally off the wall as a misspelling, but still pretty unlikely given how common "inter-" is as a prefix. And in this case, having this would be harmful as it would inhibit searching for this actual term, which has quite a few hits in WP already as various company names (none of which are main enough for a redirect themselves). This seems to be what the original target was for, but I'm having trouble finding much about the exact relationship. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And to add a little, god forbid I say the P-word, but yes WP:PANDORA applies, lest "enter-" redirects are deemed appropriate to make for all the (what I assume are) thousands of articles that begin with "inter-". This one is only even being intertained entertained because this redirect was up here for a different reason. Arguing for a retarget (and why to the dab page? Why not to the same place that "interactive" itself redirects?) is tantamount to saying: yes, we should delete this, but we should also make a brand new redirect, which no one seems to have bothered doing in the many years that the thousands of "inter-" articles have existed. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was curious, and Special:Prefixindex/Inter just goes on and on, so I ran the numbers. "Thousands" is correct. There's currently 10360 mainspace pages with titles starting "Inter", and another 22605 mainspace redirects starting "Inter"; 10407 of those redirects target mainspace pages not starting with "Inter", so would need {{R from avoided double redirect}}s created too if we took this as a mandate.
      For my part, I don't strongly care whether it's kept or deleted, but do not retarget to the disambig unless something with that spelling is mentioned there. (And I doubt it would belong if it were.) Not a plausible misspelling. For context, original target was LJN Toys, which at the time was a separate article that did prominently mention this term. —Cryptic 19:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment: a little late to remember to mention and probably inconsequential at this point, but the only evidence i found of enteractive working under ljn was circular. that is, old diffs and incoming links cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 31

[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the current target page talk wasn't notified. Web-julio (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • September, which says that it has only 30 days in the first (very short) paragraph, makes more sense than either of the two new proposals, and I'd say to retarget there if there were any internal links. But there aren't, and a redlink is a better result here for all other use cases. Delete. —Cryptic 06:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if September 31 ever gets talked about in Wikipedia, it would be in the current target (list). However, it's not yet. Though both mentions the words separatedly. Web-julio (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery. There is no information on why did the editor must added in a leap year for September. IMO, there is only 30 days beneath the month of September but not added in one day. See this: [28] ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 03:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chalcolithic cultures of China

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karhusaari (island)

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matsubara dialect

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nueva Hampshire

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Turkish Turkish

[edit]

nonsense redirect Golikom (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per this source, this source, and this source, "Turkish Turkish" is not a nonsense statement, but rather one used for categorical purposes.
We must also keep in mind that "English English", "French French", "German German", and "Spanish Spanish" all exist too. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can hardly call these sources. Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume "Turkish Turkish" means the Anatolian dialects of Turkish so non Anatolian Turks aren't Turkish? What kind of statement is this? Beshogur (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a non sequitur. By that logic, French French would insult Quebec French speakers and other non-Metropolitan French speakers by calling them not French (which they aren't and neither is Turkish Turkish, that's why there is a second Turkish/French in the terms).
And to answer your previous question, whether I created them or not has no importance on whether or not Turkish Turkish should be kept/deleted. My sources are self-explanatory.
Here's two more sources I found with "Turkish Turkish" used in them. [29][30] 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop giving example of other things. There is nothing like Turkish Turkish, and these are the "sources" you have hardly found. Beshogur (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you contend that the governments of Tokyo, NYC, London, Paris, Moscow, etc, are *not* reliable? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read what reliable are. Beshogur (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the existence of a term, not about an event. I would assume sources needed would be more lenient than those needed for an event's occurrence? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such term. Beshogur (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a redirect, it makes sense. And since it's in use, it doesn't really matter if it makes sense or not, either conceptually or grammatically (but if it was grammatically incorrect (aka redundant or pleonasm), so all other redirects mentioned above, such as German German, would be pleonastic/redundancies). Web-julio (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or retarget per anon/Granger. Web-julio (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense what? So no one discovered this until late 2024? Beshogur (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting wedge

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "Putting wedge" is definitely a term associated with golf clubs but since we don't really know where to mention it or what it really refers to, we might as well put it in the bin until the term has an actual definition. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock)[reply]
  • Refine to #chipper, as an unofficial, possibly erroneous, but commonly/colloquially used synonym. I can find published attestations for the term's use (in novels and such), but it isn't enough for inclusion in the article itself. But that's fine and plenty enough for a redirect, no inclusion is really needed. The redirect itself will inform someone searching for it: "A putting wedge is more correctly called a chipper." Fieari (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tata (Persian King)

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 14:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harapanahalli railway station

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Linjian

[edit]

The name, which is that of a town in the Chinese province of Shandong, is being redirected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson with same name. Either it should be deleted or be redirected to the target page I have given.Toadboy123 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per User:Sun8908. As far as I can tell, the primary topic is the town in Shandong, which we don't have an article for. I don't think this is a plausible enough search term for Linjiang, Linchen, Lin Jian, or Chen Linjian to be worth a disambiguation page. Best to let the search function do its job until an article about the town in Shandong is created. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

サイゴン

[edit]

Japan and Vietnam have quite an interesting relationship to say the least, but it's probably not enough to warrant a redirect to one of its cities. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mongola

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States (2008–2024)

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No one is suggesting that American history ended in 2024, but 2008-2024 is covered in the target article. Ultimately, this is harmless. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a small issue in that, as noted, it isn't causing any harm, however I agree that nobody is likely to type in that specific string of characters in our search - what will most likely happen in such a case is that somebody will start typing in "History of the United States (2..." and then autocomplete options will present. If you do this now, you'll see both the (2004-present) and the (2004-2024), which in my eyes is confusing, especially if I'm a regular reader who doesn't understand Wikipedia's policy on redirects. What's more, this does fall into crystal ball territory, and is a title that makes implications which readers might take as reinforcement that Wikipedia agrees with a particular viewpoint, something which I think would be more helpful to avoid. Any implications about the period demarcations of American history are best left to our sources. ASUKITE 01:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vendamonia

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

Californian city redirects

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

Jamie Boo Birse

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

Google Currents (2011–present)

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

Kingite

[edit]

Ambiguous and not explained at target. (Soft) retarget to wikt:kingite? Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition to a dab. The term Kingite is regularly used in discussing the original forces that supported the movement during the war but the term hasn't been used int he article. I don't think it needs to be explained as 'Kingite' is obvious when given with the context. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to create the DAB?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Spaniel

[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history in case of support for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lanyard class

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 04:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to me like WP:SYN from essentially a single source (since the second source given above does not even use the term directly!), and not a term in common use. Many non-managerial workers wear lanyard badges. You might as well create a link for the "suited class", "PPE-wearing class", "tabard class" or "steel-toed boot class". — The Anome (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Laptop class" is also redirect to PMC due to similar usage.
"Lanyard class" has similar connotations and is in fairly frequent use, unlike the other phrases you mention: https://x.com/search?q=%22lanyard+class%22
Blog post that defines it and also mentions an (unlinked) mention in "academic literature". Used here in an interview on Jacobin. Somewhat difficult to find reliable sources using the exact term, but it's definitely in use and I added two other reliable source citations above. Lots of "lanyards", "lanyard wonks", "lanyard-wearing", etc. in articles. "Lanyard" is a signifier of a class.
Definition also listed on Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:lanyard
PK-WIKI (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Depression in the Middle East

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

Asmodel

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 04:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anybody out there?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GGKEY

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best target. The idea that we should delete and recreate redirects every time some redirectable word or phrase is removed or added to an article is contrary to many good things including common sense. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

[edit]

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

  • Delete "Pogrom" is not an established or a widely used term, looking at the coverage of this incident WP:RNEUTRAL. Retarget to the suggested article is also fine. — hako9 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested, but I suggest adding a {{for}} hatnote (not a {{redirect}} hatnote, for language reasons) to that target. It is supposedly being used in prominent sources (and probably social media but I'm not on Twitter) to refer to the recent ethnic hooliganism, but I agree that it's inappropriate and insensitive to refer to this as a pogrom when actual state-sanctioned pogroms actually happened here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Redirects are navigation aids. With the target article saying that the President of Israel characterized the attack as a pogrom, that's sufficient to make it a reasonable search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of the redirects is covered in WP:RPURPOSE. The President of Turkey characterized the president of Israel as a "genocidal murderer". Is that sufficient to make it a reasonable search term, and therefore, a redirect? M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your analogy doesn't apply. Per WP:BLP, it would be inappropriate to put into the biographical article on the President of Israel the personal attacks that some other world leader made (although it would be appropriate to say that he has been criticized). Likewise, we do not put into biographical articles all the insulting "nicknames" that Trump has given all his political opponents.
    In the case of this redirect in question, the target article specifically has the term "pogrom" in the article, and there are no WP:BLP concerns.
    It's somewhat bewildering that this is not obvious, and I need to explain it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's somewhat bewildering that you missed the obvious point: the president of Israel is not a reliable source for such a statement. His irrelevant opinion can be attributed to him, but that's about it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS does not apply to redirects. The question about redirects is whether it's a plausible search term. The fact that the President of Israel called it a Pogrom, and it's in the article, makes it a plausible search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably delete, the usage of pogrom seems to be isolated to biased sources and should be avoided for obvious WP:NPOV concerns. I think a retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands would only work if it is retarged to something specific on that page. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. What happened yesterday in Amsterdam was characterized by reliable sources as a pogrom. This is stated in the lede of the target. What happened in the Netherlands during the Holocaust was mass-murder of Jews, but not a pogrom or a sequence of pogroms. In fact, that article does not mention pogroms and never uses the word.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have any of the WP:RSP described this as a pogrom in their own voice? — hako9 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands or delete.
When I was a fresh-faced disambiguator, I came across an ambiguous link to a place in modern Belarus. I identified it.
The very next problem was identical. I solved that too.
The third one was the same, and I solved it as well.
At that point, I took a break, because for some reason I was unable to focus properly and was swearing uncontrollably. One of those three places, obliterated in the early 1940s, is commemorated by an engraved stone in the ground. The other two are not.
Calling the recent incident in Amsterdam a "pogrom" is an insult to all those who were victims of actual pogroms. FWIW, I have no Jewish heritage. Narky Blert (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Strong Keep - What happened in Amsterdam was horrific and it needs to be reflected as such. It has been described as a pogram and that's because it was one. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to try to say this as charitably as possible, but as someone whose relatives have had to flee actual pogroms during WW2, I feel I do need to say it:
    I find this comparison, made by heads of state or politicians and now defended by you, incredibly insensitive, deeply upsetting, and bordering, itself, on antisemitism, given how profoundly, by association, it minimizes the horrors of anti-Jewish pogroms and relativizes the atrocities of those that carried out pogroms. Especially now that it's become increasingly apparent the Israeli fans engaged in behavior that could itself, at best, be described as monstrous bigotry and cheers for ethnic cleansing.
    Either way, while I wanted to share how offensive I think this comparison actually is, I'm aware my feelings on the subject matter little. The only question that should be considered here is: per RNEUTRAL, is this term one that's been established by reliable sources to have due weight and therefore meets the criteria for NPOV redirects? I don't have an answer to that myself as I haven't looked at the proportion of sources that use the term, but I think that's what should be focused on here. LaughingManiac (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaughingManiac How is calling it a pogrom bordering on antisemitism? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said what I said and have laid out my reasons for saying it already. Take it or leave it at that. LaughingManiac (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very quick Google search demonstrates that the term “Amsterdam pogrom” and “pogrom in Amsterdam” are being widely used to describe the article topic. This strikes me a reasonable search term; I personally used the redirect to initially find the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) EDIT: under wikipedia:RNEUTRAL we are permitted to use non-neutral redirect titles and are in fact given extra leeway because redirects are less visible to readers. Given that the the term has been frequently used in reliable sources and given that it is a reasonable search term for readers to utilize, I really do not see a justification to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or just delete - the reliable sources used in the article which I spot-checked do not describe this event as a pogrom; at most they quote Israeli officials doing so. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are not describing this as a pogrom. Netanyahu is not a reliable source for what this article should be called. Parabolist (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unfortunate event with poor behavior all around does not meet the definition of a progrom. If someone has called it that that can be reflected in the article text but we shouldn't be saying it was one. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete or redirect as suggested. Not a pogrom, though there was violence against Jews. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, Ned and Ed

[edit]

These minor Codename: Kids Next Door characters (security guards of the Mustache Office Building who appeared in "Operation: S.H.A.V.E.") are not mentioned in the target article, and they weren't mentioned in the now deleted List of allies in Codename: Kids Next Door or List of Codename: Kids Next Door characters (whose extensive edit history is located at List of families in Codename: Kids Next Door) at the times the redirect was pointed at either page. Plus, a Google search for this exact term brings up mostly unrelated results (including one for the category where the redirect is located), and the redirect is also kind of ambiguous (it could refer to any three characters with these names), so I'm not sure if this is really worth keeping. Regards, SONIC678 01:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories

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

Cite AV media

[edit]

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

That was discussed in 2012, time to revisit it and get it deleted -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE #Cite web was nominated later today -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while many results are for wikis many aren't so its not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The major CS1|2 templates should be frictionless reaching the documentation, anything we can to help editors figure out how to find and use these tempalates overrides any minor guideline technicality. Nobody has presented a practical reason why this redirect would be a hindrance, but there are strong arguments why it's useful to keep. Also I'm concerned by the sheer volume of RfDs by an infinity banned sock, which are then followed up by a single IP editor voting/arguing in support of the nom. -- GreenC 16:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five Finger Discount (That's So Raven episode)

[edit]

No content about the topic in Wikipedia, just a directory of TV series episodes. fgnievinski (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per RunningTiger. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raleway

[edit]

This redirect doesn't seem to make sense. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So hell

[edit]

Unneeded redirect. The term "So hell" is not mentioned in the target article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So hell is a dependency hell about .so files, which .so is an executable format used on Linux. NagisaEf (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur J. May

[edit]

Also Arthur James May. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

[edit]

UTF-2000

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable subject that is not mentioned anymore in the redirect target article. See old AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTF-2000. Nidaana (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules to consider/Confer in e-mail debate

[edit]

Unnecessary WP:XNR of questionable usability. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:20C5:2840:D036:C9B3 (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this unnecessary WP:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ridiculous. I deleted this as housekeeping 45 minutes after I moved the original page into the project namespace back in 2008. I am effectively the only real contributor after 16 years, with most of the history being nominations for deletion and template/category shuffling, and for 4 of those years this page remained deleted as I left it. There is zero reason for this to exist in the article namespace, i.e. the actual encyclopaedia. As for this being history: I certainly didn't consider my own redirect from article to project namespace to be important edit history to keep. I deleted it. Discussions of link rot seem to be entirely hypothetical and based upon no actual data, and the original edit history, from the actual early days of the encyclopaedia, that I carefully moved into the project namespace in order to preserve, and that is now to be found at Project:Rules to consider/Confer in e-mail debate even began as a redirect itself making the idea that this is some sort of vital URL to preserve seem highly unlikely undeed. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The B

[edit]

Delete. B (disambiguation) contains no topics referred to as "The B." GilaMonster536 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you take the B or ride on the B, missed the B... there's a load of transport articles listed -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are specifically referred to as "The B," at least on the DAB page. GilaMonster536 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me, I would expect adding the "the" would take me to a disambiguation page or a more specific page rather than a generic article about the letter b. Ca talk to me! 13:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snoutlet

[edit]

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

Retarget back to Mario & Luigi: Brothership. That's literally a major character in the game's plot and the game just released so there wouldn't be a plot summary just yet. He will definitely get a mention once the editors do a write-up on the plot. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The page has a plot summary now with Snoutlet getting mentioned. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 04:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach (games)

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 04:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like we have rough consensus to keep "Bleach video games" and delete the other two, but one more relist can make it airtight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Bleach video games" and "Bleach games", and delete "Bleach (games)". The first is clearly unambiguous, and is useful, and the second is, judging by a Wikipedia and a Google search, also unambiguous, and so useful. The third seems unnatural. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Bleach games" is wrong. There are several non-videogame games, such as Bleach Trading Card Game -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, so it isn't entirely unambiguous; it's not "wrong", though. Judging by search results for "Bleach games", this is the best target. I can't find a page on the card game in the first three pages of Google search results, with every other page being about the video games. In Wikipedia's search results, only the one page on the card game comes up in the first page, with the other results (except for a handful on film/TV adaptions or the original), all being related to video games. We also (see Template:Bleach) only have one article on the card game, whereas there are eight on the video games (the list article, and seven individual games), or twelve if we're counting the "related" video games. Also, look at the pageviews difference; [36] plus, the plural "games" indicates that the searcher is looking for multiple games, ie., a list. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Whitewashing

[edit]

Unconvinced that the current target is definitely the right way for these redirects. Couldn't find "whitewash(ing)" or similar precisely. Possible alternative targets are WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Civil POV pushing, WP:Neutral point of view... Maybe I'm missing others. Again, still couldn't find the word. If neither the alternative targets nor dab-ifying nor leave as-is is a viable solution, then I guess... delete if no one objects? George Ho (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC); extended, 10:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude flying

[edit]

"Attitude flying" is not mentioned at the target, and definitions of attitude flying (eg [37][38]) do not correlate with VFR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude (engineering)

[edit]

Given the other (and similar) uses of "attitude" at disambiguation page Attitude, I'm not sure this is correctly targeted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fado (character)

[edit]

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

Comment Fado is indirectly mentioned in the passage Tetra remains in the castle while Link and the King journey to the two sages who provided the Master Sword's power. They discover Ganon's forces murdered them both (which includes Fado). Maybe a mention could be added but I am doubtful. Ca talk to me! 08:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

[edit]

Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis

[edit]

The top redirect was previously an article that was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lectka_enantioselective_beta-lactam_synthesis, apparently to preserve the option for a partial merge. But no merge has occurred, nor has any interest in doing so been expressed, nor do I think there is any content worth merging. There is no evidence this is a named reaction that is common enough to merit mention in the article. Delete all. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coramandal FC

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racial violence

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled together with Racial violence and relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • tendency to Oppose. I looked at four of the roughly 30 articles that have the redirect racial violence. The legal formulation of hate crime seems to be fairly modern, from the 1980s - although per our article it's used retrospectively to interpret older events, and the article seems mostly to cover the legal aspects of the topic. Ethnic conflict seems to be a broader article including those hate crimes patterns that evolve into major (often intra-state) armed conflicts. The intended usage of racial violence seems to be somewhere in between and overlapping hate crime and ethnic conflict, in terms of the current state of the articles. I think that the different focus of the two articles is in some sense in singular - hate crime - versus ethnic conflict = plural hate crimes (pattern of many events on scales going up to 100s or millions of victims). Scale is a natural way to divide topics - when a set of hate crimes constitutes a crime against humanity or a genocide is not purely a case of scale, but scale clearly contributes. My feeling is that the relevance of racial violence as a link is to the broader pattern of multiple hate crimes, not so much individual ones. Caveat: I arbitrarily selected only four out of about 30 links - so this may misrepresent the more common usage. There is a see also link from ethnic conflict to hate crime, so a reader looking thoroughly may find that anyway. Boud (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding "Racial violence" to this discussion has confused the issue a little. My initial proposal was for "Racially motivated violence" to be retargeted to "Hate crime" because the usage seems more consistent with that definition. The case for "Racial violence" is much less clear. Certainly, scale plays a part. I recently created the redirect "Racially motivated attack". A racially motivated attack is a hate crime and an example of racially motivated violence, but doesn't necessarily imply ethnic conflict in the sense described by our article on that subject. An example is the murder of Stephen Lawrence: in that article, the phrase "racially motivated attack" is piped to "Hate crime". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget racially motivated violence as suggested, do not change Racial violence for reasons stated above. Kind of vibes based but I would be the least surprised this way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol protest

[edit]

Impossibly vague redirect. Could easily also refer to the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, or the hundreds of other protests that happen around the world at various capitols. Delete.-1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be dabified? Do we have other articles on things called Capitol protests? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"capitol" is a generic word in this format, it is "capitol protest(s)" and not "protest(s) at the Capitol", so that would include such as the occupation of the building in Abkhazia right now; the Gunpowder Plot; Stop Line 3 protests; April 30 storming of the Michigan State Capitol; 2021 United States capitol protests; George Floyd protests in Utah; 2024 storming of the Kenyan Parliament; 2023–2024 Georgian protests; etc, etc. I don't think it would make a good disambig page. You could make a list article instead. List of protests near, at, surrounding, around, and, in, capitol, legislature, and, parliamentary, buildings -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I is a useful search term. Should be DAB or List target.Blethering Scot 23:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would prefer to dabify it. Seems a reasonable search term. Unsure if it passes NLIST but that could also be ok. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that there are wayyyy too many things that can be described as a "Capitol protest" that it becomes borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 190+ countries, 50+ US states plus Brazil, Canada, and Germany as federal governments, plus centuries of history including countries that no longer exist. It would be hard to maintain, and I doubt it would pass WP:NLIST. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per 1ctinus. As a dab, we would either be using a dab as a runaround for a list that would fail WP:NLIST and involve WP:OR, or we would be trying to determine which protests held at capitols have been referred to as "Capitol protest", which would be painstakingly difficult and feel oddly like an incomplete version of the first option. Daask (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rising And Setting Of The Sun

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 29#Rising And Setting Of The Sun

4 (album) by matisse

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

2026 Houston Texans season

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

Macchar

[edit]

no particular affinity for urdu cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one matches a lot of pretty legitimate uses in Indian websites for mosquito control, as does the spelling variant "machhar". Hard to tell which is the preferred spelling. Dyanega (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if wiktionary is to be trusted here, it'd be "macchar". then again, it's tucked away in the translations, so... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mozze

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

Brandblusser

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

Extuingisher

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

Agent Galahad

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

University of Michigan School Of Law

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

Headwaters Country Jam

[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:NOTFANDOM

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

Suggested decision: Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:WPINFD and WP:WPINWA already target that page, which explains the differences between Wikipedia and Fandom, but this redirect is still targeting the policy on that Wikipedia is not a social network, just like treating anyone who slaps unnotable fancruft with indiscriminate collections of information just like on Fandom[hyperbole] as someone who is using Wikipedia as a social network. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Unfortunately, I cannot notify the ones who created such redirects because both of them are either retired and/or inactive. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you retarget it to an essay instead of a policy? The Banner talk 17:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia now has an essay explaining that it is not Fandom. The current target of these redirects is outdated, so i was obligated to ask for consensus before doing any deliberate redirect target changes. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You are proposing to downgrade the level of importance as an essay is just a long comment while a policy can be enforced. The Banner talk 12:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Both have incoming links, and have existed for years. Also, "policy" > "essay" any day of the week. Hatnote the current target if necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the current target should have a hatnote if we were to keep this redirect.
    I propose it should look something like this:
    {{Redirect2|WP:NOTFANDOM|WP:NOTWIKIA|the essay explaining that Wikipedia is not Fandom|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom}}
    Which would appear as:
    "WP:NOTFANDOM" and "WP:NOTWIKIA" redirect here. For the essay explaining that Wikipedia is not Fandom, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom.
    67.209.128.85 (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely used already, and this concerns POLICY, which is of much higher import than any other rules. An ESSAY is not even a rule, and thus will be widely misleading as it makes any arguments using the shortcut expecting policy result in an argument that means nothing, as essays are ultimately not WIDE CONSENSUS created polices. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Policy should be a higher priority than essays --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. When Wikipedia users appeal to an argument by linking to it, it's crucial that the link to that argument be preserved, even if it is later rejected by consensus, because that link is part of the user's statement and is essential for understanding what they are saying. Unfortunately, it's not clear to me that saying WP:NOTWIKIA or WP:NOTFANDOM is saying anything in particular, other than the implicit "That content would be acceptable on Fandom, but is not acceptable on Wikipedia." I say this based on review of both the target and a sample of inbound links. There is no relevant content at the target, except for "If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, ... many free and commercial sites provide wiki/web hosting". Most editors here seems concerned about downgrading from a policy page to an essay, but this statement doesn't make any authoritative pronouncement about what is or isn't allowed or should or shouldn't be done. I think we should target the best expression of the referenced argument. I'm not overly impressed by Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom. It's a simple comparison page, and doesn't make a specific argument, but I think if we are to try to understand the views of those who link to WP:FANDOM, it's better than WP:NOT. Daask (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Baker (lobbyist)

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

myelate

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

some regional honeys

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 29#some regional honeys

Benzema 15

[edit]

Surely Benzema 15 is an intrusive and obscure name for an article relating to the football/soccer player Karim Benzema, which relates to sensitive content which shouldn't be openly glorified with the naming of this redirect, as it cannot be compared to other redirects such as CR7 for Cristiano Ronaldo. Cltjames (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barotrauma and Wind turbines

[edit]

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

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

Nustrale

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

Final kefka

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

Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation

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

Confusing Pokémon Redirects

[edit]

All three redirects can potentially be confused, and thus serve as unhelpful search terms. "Pokémon attack" can refer to both the attacking moves of the Pokémon and the in-game stat (While both are covered at the same article, a redirect this broad does not help with finding one or the other), while "Evolution of Pokémon" could be misinterpreted as being the real-world evolution of the franchise when it is instead covering the in-game terminology. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't pokemon attack also refer to getting attacked by a pokemon in-universe. Anyways, delete all per nom. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 'attack' redirects. Both things it refers to would have the same target. I'm neutral on the 'evolution' redirect, as you'd only think about the "real-world" evolution if you (over)think about it too much. Web-julio (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. "attack" could refer to moves, stat, or any other form of attack related to the franchise or the species. evolution could refer to the franchise or the species. so on and so forth. was admittedly a little iffy on nominating those before, but they're here now, so... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Italian American Foundation

[edit]

(NPP action) An article at this title was deleted at AfD in 2020. Per WP:SOFTSP, interwiki redirects should not be made to other-language Wikipedias. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is the English language wikipedia, not the Italian. The Banner talk 17:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't actually find the claim that interwiki redirects should not be made to other-language Wikipedias at WP:SOFTSP. Why shouldn't they? Wouldn't a soft redirect be a good solution here? --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trovatore: I think it's implied by The plain {{soft redirect}} template should not be used in the mainspace. Instead, use one of the specialized templates (see below), and the fact that there is no {{Wikipedia redirect}} template. As for "why not": readers of the English Wikipedia are looking for English-language content. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a little speculative — maybe the specialization is listed somewhere else, or maybe just no one's made it yet. That doesn't necessarily imply an active opposition to interlang redirects.
As to the second, probably you didn't mean it this way, but that can be taken as almost insulting, the stereotype of the monolingual American/Brit/Aussie. The purpose of soft redirects is to help users find relevant content in sister projects, and I don't see why we wouldn't want to help them find it in other languages (whether those are technically "sister projects" is beside the point). --Trovatore (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but said relevant content is locked behind a different wiki with (possibly) different quality standards and a different language. it's statistically not very likely that everyone who looks for something like this would coincidentally know english and italian. contrast to soft redirects to wiktionary as an example, which lead to the english wiktionary
also, that second point didn't really make much sense. what's so insulting or stereotypical about wp-en readers wanting content in english? isn't that the entire reason they're not on wp-it? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary also has different inclusions standards from English Wikipedia — very different, seeing that it has a different purpose. Italian Wikipedia is at least closer than that. They're entitled to their own standards, but they're in the same general milieu; it's not like a random web link.
Of course not everyone who looks this up is likely to know Italian, but given the topic, it seems likely that a fair number will, or will at least be able to puzzle it out.
What's insulting is not assuming that they're looking for content in English, but that they're looking for content only in English. The fact that someone is looking in English Wikipedia provides no warrant to assume they're not interested in content in other languages as well. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately, betting on the chance of someone knowing that other language in the first place is, in the nicest way i can put it, lazy. for cases like this, there are some solutions i've seen
  • returning to red
  • including a red link, but also a link to an article in an appropriate language (mineirinho ultra adventures [pt]). haven't seen this outside of the touhou project infobox though, which means i haven't seen it in mainspace, so i'm not sure this would be a good idea
  • creating an article lmao
i am still inclined towards the first, since someone could create an article later on cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "betting" on the user knowing Italian. Look, not everything in Wikipedia has to be useful to every user. For example, many technical articles are entirely useless to any reader who doesn't have a very strong technical background, and that's just fine, because Wikipedia is WP:MANYTHINGS. The fact that there's a well-written (though admittedly poorly sourced) Italian article on this topic should not be ignored; we should find some way to surface that to the reader who searches for this term. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
method 2 is sounding really good right about now... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

[edit]

Hent

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

Just one more thing

[edit]

mentioned in both columbo and columbo's articles as his catchphrase, and in columbo and peter falk's articles as the name of a memoir (and of an autobiography). opinions? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Columbo (character), per redirects like Don't have a cow, man to Bart Simpson. As for the memoir, the capitalized version, Just One More Thing, should redirect to Peter Falk. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Just One More Thing is a disambiguation page, I vote to retarget to that. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a do or two has been did, resulting in just one more thing (capitalized) being a dab. assuming said do is not undid, i'll vote to retarget to that dab cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clock/calendar

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:HEAVY

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

Black Mesa Golem Ape

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

The Crumbles (illness)

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

Wario 4

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

Chimneybot hat

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

Zubon

[edit]

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

Richard Doty

[edit]

Target page is a documentary film in which Doty is interviewed extensively, but the article says nothing substantive about Doty other than this fact, so the connection seems tenuous. Possible new target is Paul Bennewitz, as Doty is mostly known for his involvement in an alleged clandestine disinformation campaign targeted at Bennewitz. Honestly, I'm on the fence about this redirect; I think that Doty is wikinotable, albeit in association with a WP:FRINGE topic, but creating an article about him is not on my priority list, and I'm not sure whether Mirage Men is an appropriate redirect target in the interim. Carguychris (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard L. Doty and remove links from the three first pages here. I agree that the fringe topic Doty may be notable, but there is currently no obvious target article for a redirect from his name. 80.221.186.222 (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doty is certainly wikinotable and I've been tempted to write the article on him but so far as I know, he's still living and I'm not sure a standalone bio on him could pass BLP. because we'd had to add caveats to everything he says about himself. The two obvious candidates for redirect are Mirage Men and Paul Bennewitz. I prefer redirecting to the documentary because Doty consented to participating in it. Strongly opppose redirect to Richard L. Doty, which would just add to confusion. Feoffer (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Richard L. Doty per 80.221.186.222 - L. is the stronger claimant over someone with only a dubious target. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furry Shadaya

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

Furry Happy Monsters

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

Forkknife

[edit]

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

Fork Knife

[edit]

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

Henry the Hermit

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

Alex Shrub

[edit]

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

unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

[edit]

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

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

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

Moseley tea service

[edit]

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

Kattie

[edit]

misspelling of "kettie". while plausible enough on its own, results gave me a bunch of other stuff, like sandals and a potentially sort of kind of notable musician cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musha-gaeshi

[edit]

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

Foot taboo

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

Ellen feiss

[edit]

Irrelevant alternate capitalization not used in any other articles. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Feiss

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

Adult contemporary progressive death metal

[edit]

I don't think this term is unambiguously affiliated with this album. For instance, the first result on Google (for me) was for a band different than that of this album's. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got that, too (I'm assuming from last.fm), but, Between the Buried and Me literally coined the term. Therefore, it makes better sense to redirect to their album. If, and only if, more bands start to identify with this term, and major outlets such as Rolling Stone pick up on it and define it, could we then start an article for this term. Moline1 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC8671

[edit]

Redirect is for an alternative name for the DJI Neo. The section on the Neo was removed from the DJI Mavic article as the two drones are almost entirely unrelated. Since no article on the Neo currently exists, this redirect should be deleted or retargeted. - ZLEA T\C 07:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to DJI. --Tim Wu (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2.4-dihydroxybenzoic acid

[edit]

Misspelling of the correct 2,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid (period instead of a comma). This is confusing as it suggests the numbers relate to some sort of amount, rather than being locants. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it would be confusing if it were in the article, but because it is a redirect it clarifies more than confuses: anyone who thought it was a period would be corrected and brought to the right article with a comma. In this case, deletion wouldn't be beneficial, so keep BugGhost🦗👻 09:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the context, of a technical term in a topic-area where technical details of the term matter, I don't see how this specific case is an expected typo. There are thousands of chemical articles with punctuation in their title, doesn't seem worthwhile to envision every possible punctuation-typo. Noting also the dubious-faith creation of it, per the "Persistent creation of unhelpful redirects" reason its creating editor was indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not debating whether to create redirects for every possible punctuation-typo - just whether it is beneficial to delete this specific one. BugGhost🦗👻 19:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DMacks. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sontochin

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

SN-7619

[edit]

Not mentioned at target or anywhere else on English Wikipedia, Google search turns up nothing related to the the target. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the the article cited by Invasive Spices which includes a confusing mention of 2,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid in relation to resochin. It also mentions SN-7619, but makes clear this was an old term to refer to resochin, which is the same as chloroquine. So, I would support a retarget to chloroquine if this article is referenced there and it's added as an alternative name, however I also think this is somewhat obscure and not in modern use. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Myanmar English

[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect, apparently created in error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Donald Trump

[edit]

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

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

Baby gaetz

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

Zhuhui Stadium

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

November 20

[edit]

4 (album) by matisse

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

L̃

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

Akari Date

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

xxps

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

Criticism of object-oriented programming

[edit]

The target section Object-oriented programming#Criticism does not exist in that form anymore, see this change. There are currently no incoming internal links. There is no relevant edit history at Criticism of object-oriented programming that would need to be preserved. Tea2min (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could link to Object-oriented programming#Popularity and reception, or just be deleted. My vote is delete. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathnerd314159: I already fixed the broken section anchor. Why is it better to delete it? Jarble (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't find it useful. It is not in use on-wiki and I don't think it is useful off-wiki either. I have plans to further restructure the OOP article and I don't think the effort to keep the anchor updated is worth it. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I've read a lot of published criticisms of OOP programming in my comp-sci classes back in the day. Shouldn't we have a section on it? Fieari (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a topic for the article talk. But my original change (linked above) was removing the criticism section and integrating the criticisms into the article. It has been 9 months and nobody minded the section's absence. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To decide between deletion or retargeting to Object-oriented programming#Popularity_and_reception
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helstinki

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

Cricoarytenoid

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

James J. Finn

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

Criticism of George Bush

[edit]

This could refer to both presidents. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 17:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisking

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

Black Myth: Waking

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

Plannet terror

[edit]

This is a misspelling of "planet," but for some reason, when it was created in 2007, it was redirected to the current target rather than Planet Terror (to be fair, Planet Terror is one of the two films shown in Grindhouse, but it still doesn't fully make sense to redirect it to the page about the latter film as opposed to that about the former). The misspelling is also questionably plausible—a Google search for that exact misspelling shows stuff related to Grindhouse and Terror Planet, but the posters and stuff still show the correctly spelled Planet Terror. As such a situation, I'm proposing we either delete this redirect or retarget it to Planet Terror, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards, SONIC678 20:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Terror didn't get its own article until 2009, so that explains why the redirect was made to Grindhouse (film) instead. However, I see no good reason to keep this. Delete. 162 etc. (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete per 162 TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

Retarget I think it is a possible mistake. Not the most likely, but I've seen the typo before. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web interfaces

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

Cute number

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

Work is an honor

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

Northern countries

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

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

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

Here's how Bernie can still win

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

Neurospicy

[edit]

@Andrewa: retarget to wikt:neurospicy. Or keep if eventually it gets mentioned, it would be here or related (besides Ronya footnotes). Web-julio (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackask

[edit]

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

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

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

September 2017 bridge incident

[edit]

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

Unietd States

[edit]

Very implausible typo. That's like two errors. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

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

Canadaa

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

美利坚合众国

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

Crown grant

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

Comprehensive strategic partnership

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

⚭/equaric unicodes

[edit]

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

Perplexing Pool

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

Ernest McGillicuddy

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

BO⅂ICE

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

Le4and6

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

Shak.

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

Bill Shakespeare

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

A Night

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

A Child's Garden of Poetry

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

Genoicide

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

Benjamin Franklin (swim coach)

[edit]

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

Unmentioned Pikmin 2 caves

[edit]

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

A little temporary security

[edit]

This came from a portion of a Benjamin Franklin quote that's out of context and frankly, having this redirect to Benjamin Franklin would probably be even stupider. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

Cilla Single

[edit]

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

A Sam

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

Fabian'’s lizard

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

Dr A

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

Wonderful; A song from Wicked

[edit]

Looks a bit unnatural. Maybe the creator don't know about parentheses. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

Thank Goodness

[edit]

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

Eytp

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

Eypt

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

Egpyt

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

A .R . EGYPT

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

DuPage 3

[edit]

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

November 17

[edit]

List of Neverwinter Nights characters

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

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

  • Keep and restore the content underneath (deleted edits from prior to 2016) so that a proper character list can be created at the target article. 2016 is the bad old days when non-notable stuff was deleted before redirection, even though ATD policy was still the same, we didn't always do it right. Also, naming convention is pretty standard--if you're cleaning up problematic/confusing redirects, this ain't one of them. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreeing with Clemens somewhat. While the list itself is very unlikely to ever be revived, it serves as a record and and helps link to the AfD discussion that took place, which also has a list of potential sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll reproduce here what I wrote on my talk page: The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters was to delete and redirect, not only to redirect. Undeleting the deleted content would be contrary to the AfD outcome. It would need overturning the AfD closure, which would need to be done at DRV, not here. What's more, I can't even find deleted content to undelete. The deletion log indicates some sort of technical issue in 2016. Sandstein 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this should be kept: a) For historical reasons. b) It's just the next best thing we have. There are hits, an people are redirected there, showing what little we have and that we don't have a separate article. c) That's where new content would be added. And there is such content! I can't say if there's enough to establish notability and could change the outcome in a deletion review, but there's more than during the time of the deletion discussion. Examples would be his Kotaku article or this book, p. 20-21. I'd like to add such commentary, but I have too much on my plate already. Daranios (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore the content under the redirect, as per Jclemens; the contents of the old list are now at User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters so they can be moved back to article space. A short list can be merged into the main article until it can be spun back out again. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear to me how this got to my userspace. 2016 was after I'd was no longer an admin. Did I request restoration in the past and then forgot about it, or did someone just do this? Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have asked me to do that as I was still an admin at that time. BOZ (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an old redirect with history, and I honestly believe said history should be restored if possible, even if only to the history of this redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This redirect is not old (2016 from a recent-ish AfD), and does not contain any valuable history. This RfD turnout is quite surprising all within a few minutes tbh. There is still NO characters at the target article, so the redirect is still misleading and this has not been remedied. All the history is in userspace which can be reinstated when it is ready. Does not need a misleading "list" redirect in the meantime. Sources can be copied to the Neverwinter Nights talk page, or grabbed from the AfD directly. We don't do redirects for the "next best thing we have", when we actually have nothing. The only thing that needed to be true for this redirect was to have "characters listed", and Neverwinter Nights does not even manage this in its current state. Articles don't need to exist as a redirect just to indicate where content "should" be added. In fact the opposite is true per WP:REDYES. There is no such content on Wikipedia for this topic at this moment. The only possibility would be to delete List of Neverwinter Nights characters (the replacement created by Sandstein), and move in the material from User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters to the same title, if consensus indicates material should be held here. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    8 years is not old? I understand it's not from the 200x's, but 8 years is still a pretty long time... Fieari (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom., there is no list. The redirect is somewhat misleading and not helpful. Neverwinter Nights is the obvious search term, and if someone did, for some reason, search on this full name they would be better served with this list of results [44] rather than being jumped to a page that has no list. A case of a redirect actually making things worse. Old content is userfied and can be developed, so that consideration is moot. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, if without prejudice to recreating if usable sources are found. list not present. i think misleading readers would do more harm than losing track of an afd thread in a mainspace page's edit history. even then, deletion would most likely link people attempting to recreate it to this discussion, which in turn links to that discussion, so... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do redirects need sources? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it refers to sources at the target article, to substantiate a mention of multiple characters and allow readers to receive sourced content, when it is specified in the search bar (via this redirect) that the reader SPECIFICALLY wants a "list of characters", one that we don't have anywhere in mainspace, nor any sources for. Redirects do need to be "reliably sourceable", because all material in mainspace must be verifiable, and redirects are material, and redirects are in mainspace. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should indeed have a list of characters at the target, but the content is already available even if not in that page currently. No, redirects don't need to be reliably sourced, per WP:RPURPOSE. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RPURPOSE is a guideline; WP:V is policy. Redirects too must be verifiable. Alternate spellings can be verified by WP:COMMONSENSE. What reason-for-maintaining bullet point does this redirect (a redirect indicating a "list of characters") meet on WP:RPURPOSE? Utopes (talk / cont) 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since COMMONSENSE can satisfy V, then, V's not really an issue, is it? Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i said i'd have no prejudice against recreation if sources could be found cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 10:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't explain why deleting a redirect to a notable work of fiction would be influenced in any way by sourcing--presumably, non-primary sourcing--for a set of elements that meet WP:CSC clause 2. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are secondary sources out there which would allow to include some commentary on characters as a group and individually into the target, but which have not yet been employed. Like [45] or [46]. Or, from a very different angle, an analytical comment on player characters on Dungeons, Dragons, and Digital Denizens, p. 20-21. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now included a rudimentary listing of characters in the Reception section, with potential for expansion based on said secondary sources, which I hope solves the gravest misgivings of Utopes and cogsan. Based on this I'd argue for the inclusion of the old, userfied page into the history of the redirect, as it could be used as a basis to search for more secondary sources, if someone should desire to do so. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

i don't think some examples in the reception section would count as enough to warrant a list redirect, so i guess my vote stays for the moment, with equally little prejudice against recreation cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan: So what in your view is still lacking for such a redirect to be justified? Number of characters? Description/commentary? Presentation in bulletpoint form or some such? Daranios (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what i think is missing is a list. "list of knives" probably shouldn't link to an article that only mentions santoku and bread knives, as an example. also as an example, characters of deltarune and that other game doesn't mention every character (where's lemon bread?), but it does have a good handful
so yeah, "number of characters" is the closest to my answer among the options provided, and if reliable sources only seem to cover three of them in any level of detail, i'd say press the big ol' return to red button cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan: Thanks. WP:RETURNTORED starts with "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article". It might, but though it pains me to say, the last AfD dedided that it did not have the potential to be expandied into its own article then. So do you still not like the redirect even though to my knowledge there is no other article which would cover even the four/five characters we have at the target now? Or to look at it from the other direction, what would be the number for characters you would see as the minimum for an embedded list to not want to delete our redirect? Daranios (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem here? Red link or redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD by finding sources that allow a new list article to be written, then you can just do that! Retaining this redirect doesn't help. The redirect does not have the old article history, so that argument for keeping it is moot. The old article history is available and userfied, so you have that. You are arguing like this is AfD but the only consideration is whether this is a useful redirect. On that score, it clearly isn't. There are at least nine articles that show up in search if you look for Neverwinter Nights [47]. Now if someone is looking for a list of Neverwinter nights characters, the redirect chooses to send them to one of these pages and ignore the others. The reader is taken to a page that does not list the characters, and does not meet their information requirement. If anyone were actually interested in all of the characters, they are better off seeing all nine articles listed, which will give them a fuller picture, rather than being taken to a page that does not answer their information requirement but pretends to. I just do not see what the benefit is of retaining a redirect that has no history and no utility. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't the fact that it was deemed that there weren't enough sources for an article then, and that that's still the case now, be more reason to delete?
i have some level of hope that it might be possible to create that list someday, i just know that that's not today cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am not sure if I could disprove the AfD in the form of establishing this as a notable topic, and I don't currently have the time (or rather priority based on many other open to-do ideas) to make sure one way or another. And that is not the issue. (I'd be for restoring the userfied history as I said. But the history I was originally referring to was the link to the deletion discussion in the talk page.) I am pretty sure that I could create an embedded list, and for that it would be useful to know opinions how (big) such a list should look to make sense. Just as one project utilizing secondary sources on this topic which have not been (fully) used yet. On the other hand, the AfD did establish this redirect, so redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD does not make sense to me. Rather, deleting the redirect would mean overturning the AfD result. But I guess that's within the prerogative of RfD. Looking at the other hits again I am no longer completely sure if it is best to guide the reader to Neverwinter Nights at this point. We do have five characters there currently, and overall commentary, and it fits better to the redirect title. But other hits do have several characters embedded, too. So withdrawing my keep !vote for the time being, but I am still interested in cogsan's answer to my question above. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is on a case-by-case basis, so the best way to put it is
  • general franchises: at least most of the major cast being notable, with some wiggle room for a handful of more important/popular yet not very notable ones
  • general franchises that are really long: if they're not known for more than one character, just go for articles for the few notable ones. otherwise, same criteria seem to apply
  • novels and other such character-heavy franchises (which nn seems to be): there's usually no plan b for if not enough of them are notable for a list, so to quote a wise scorpion, "lol. lmao."
  • pokémon: the best way to describe the situation with pokémon and its (human) characters, and how rules related to notability are treated in its context, is doing multiple backflips in a row to distract people from the question while professor elm keeps his entry
it's a complicated case, but it seems neverwinter nights just plain doesn't have enough notable characters in the first place, "major" or not
and granted, this is for if such a list exists in the first place, and since the answer to that in this case is "not anymore lol", it's really just a matter of deleting and hoping the case changes sometime before the sun goes boom cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, pinging Mark viking, who had suggested the redirect back at the AfD. Daranios (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the AfD which made this a redirect in the first place. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative

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

Greater Luxembourg

[edit]

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

Keep, possibly redirect to Luxembourg. The thing very definitely exists, see, for example [48] (there are dozens of solid peer-reviewed works using the term). According to this source, the Greater Luxembourg includes "partly derelict French periphery benefiting from the economic spillover of Luxembourg". Having once made an (accidental) stop there, I can vouch for the description. Whether this description matches the Greater Region of SaarLorLux, I do not know (the SaarLorLux seems much larger than what the works describing the Greater Luxembourg imply). Викидим (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War for some historical background of the term. Викидим (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per MPGuy. This is a solution in search of a problem. Whether or not strictly accurate, the term "Greater Region of Luxembourg" is widely used in reliable published academic source (1, 2). As for "Greater Luxembourg", this is also a commonly used term. Ernst & Young offer accountancy services for for "Greater Luxembourg" (3). So too does the UN (4) and the Lux government (5, "Given the important role of Luxembourg in the ‘greater Luxembourg’ labour market, the department could usefully explore funding opportunities in neighbouring regions..."). This is a very small selection. Where exactly is the problem with the current situation? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brigade Piron although I agree with you regarding the 'Greater Region of Luxembourg', I still think that when a reader searches for 'Greater Luxembourg', they are more likely looking for information on Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War. РоманЖ (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm still opposed. After having boldy but wrongly asserted that the region is "never" referred to as Greater Luxembourg, they have still to provide any evidence that it is used to refer to any of the other three other items now proposed for disambiguation. Several of these seem very suspect. Can we have some evidence that this is not simply WP:OR, please? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I am trying is to avoid splitting hairs here. The very fact of this discussion confirms IMHO that a reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would be quite likely confused if a result of clicking on a blue link Greater Luxembourg would bring him to a particular page (regardless of context) so it should point to a DAB to force editors to disambiguate such links according to the context. I am less opinionated about the other two redirects (since a typical editor among the ones that I have seen usually proceeds with caution before adding a wikilink with disambiguation, thus misdirection problems are less likely). If reaching a consensus requires me to abandon my stance of pointing the "modern region" redirect to the DAB as well, feel free to disregard my request WRT to the second and third redirects. Викидим (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron which of these items (Duchy of Luxembourg, Luxembourg (Belgium), and Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War) cannot be found in sources referring to "Greater Luxembourg"? When I google, I see "Greater Luxembourg" associated with the Duchy of Luxembourg and Luxembourg in Belgium. I have not found any references linking "Greater Luxembourg" to the annexation plans after the Second World War. Despite this, based on the discussion above, I have tentatively included it in the draft of the disambiguation page. РоманЖ (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handwriting expert

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

Dana Fuller

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital

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

Ra'ad 1

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Username policy

[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Delete. WP's username policy is already displayed prominently when creating a new account, so saying that new users need this so badly as to justify an XNR is nonsense. And the retarget proposal immediately above is equally bad, since it doesn't talk about any sort of policies, just a couple specific examples for Windows only, not the general concept, which is wayyyy more general than even any operating system. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Tamzin. It is an entry-level thing. And as Legoktm says, it could be confusing. But perhaps the search prompt should be something like "Username policy (Wikipedia)", in which case this one should be retargeted as suggested. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin et al. I don't feel it has plausible uses outside of Wikipedia space. JayCubby 17:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Squeeze

[edit]

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

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

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

The removal diff at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_squeeze&diff=prev&oldid=1075503817 looks difficult to distinguish from vandalism. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot say, but I would not put the removed content back as it was unsourced and hard (for me) to understand. The stock market is complex, but that first paragraph was incredibly hard. The sourced content about Gamma squeeze also didn't seem to be related to the source, so ultimately it is the maintainers of the target article who have to decide. As the redirect has history and an AfD that favoured merge, restore and tag for merge. Jay 💬 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfD doesn't have the authority to do that - it would be overturning an AfD outcome out of process. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? RfD overturns a lot of AfD redirect outcomes. And this particular case is not about overturning, it is helping the AfD outcome by going through the process of merge-and-redirect. When an article is tagged with "merge-to", its status becomes temporary until the merge is complete. Jay 💬 08:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfD overturns a lot of AfD redirect outcomes -> huh? If an AfD closes as redirect then AfD is declaring that the content shouldn't be an article. AfD doesn't have the authority to declare something should exist as a redirect, so it's not overturning that outcome for RfD to say it shouldn't, and therefore delete. It is overturning to, even temporarily, return that content to an article. And the {{merge}} and even {{Afd-merge to}} backlogs are months long so "temporary" is wishful.
Our options here are either to revert that edit, do the merge ourselves (which is a bold action that doesn't derive any authority from this discussion), or delete as not mentioned. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stars War

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

Radio-Canada

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

Make disambiguation page instead. While the CBC is known in French as "Radio-Canada", the term in English most commonly refers to Ici Radio-Canada Télé or Ici Radio-Canada Première, its two main broadcast services. A look at the incoming links to Radio-Canada shows that almost all are actually intended for one of these two articles. 162 etc. (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the same arguments at the previous RfD, the current target was deemed the primary topic. [Disclosure: previous RfD closer] Jay 💬 07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a French-English dictionary. No English-language reliable sources refer to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as "Radio-Canada". However, they do use "Radio-Canada" to refer to the TV or radio networks.[49][50] 162 etc. (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per prior RfD, this is the best target to cover the options, including the international radio broadcaster. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per my previous arguments. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean disambiguate. I previously !voted to keep the redirect, but 162 is right to bring this up again as the state of how editors are using the redirect wasn't discussed in the previous RfD. I went through a small sample of article links and there is clearly a misalignment between what editors think Radio-Canada points to and what it actually does. I wouldn't say that 'almost all' editors intend to link to French-language media services rather than the company entity, though, it's clearly a common intention. I still believe that landing at Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is unsurprising for Radio-Canada, but a DAB page may useful in constructing better and consistent inter-article links. Disambiguating Radio-Canada would be a net positive if creating hundreds of article links to a DAB page is in itself OK, I know it is discouraged. Also note that Radio-Canada shows up as a link in References sections, and I am unsure if that is automatically generated. This would need to be addressed as well. ― Synpath 21:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cite web

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

Göbenä

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

Bighead octopus,

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

True positive

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

Ap (ghost)

[edit]

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

Atlantoöccipital articulations

[edit]

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

Hebed

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

Tucker Turner

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

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

[edit]

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

Ted, Ned and Ed

[edit]

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

Ultrajectine

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

Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories

[edit]

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

Cite AV media

[edit]

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

Goolge book

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

Googlw

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

GGKEY

[edit]

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

November 15

[edit]

Winkepedia

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

Rising And Setting Of The Sun

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Rising And Setting Of The Sun

Miencraft

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

Capitol protest

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Capitol protest

"SD"

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

Headwaters Country Jam

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Headwaters Country Jam

2007 offseason

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

Nueva Hampshire

[edit]

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

Turkish Turkish

[edit]

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

Putting wedge

[edit]

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

Tata (Persian King)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Tata (Persian King)

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 14:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make this title red on the merits as an implausible typo (missing "n"). I don't think RfD has the authority to undelete the history deleted at AfD as Explicit suggests (only DRV could do that), and am fine with history merging the 2020 edits to another title. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nail You Down

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

Justin Bieber dead

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted by Rsjaffe per WP:G3

W i k i p e d i a

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

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon

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

Harapanahalli railway station

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Harapanahalli railway station

2001 attacks

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

Linjian

[edit]

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

ベトナム系オーストラリア人

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

サイゴン

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#サイゴン

Rihanna Death

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted by Asilvering per WP:G3

人身売買

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

アメリカ合衆国国務省

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

Teletubbies characters)

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

Nueva York (desambiguación)

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

Radiac detector

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

Fishers Island, New York (old edit history)

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

The Licensing Letter

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

Racial violence

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Racial violence

Blind tasting

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

Pauletta Brupbakher

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

Stephoscope

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

Mongola

[edit]

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

History of the United States (2008–2024)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#History of the United States (2008–2024)

Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1

[edit]

Several redirects were created when I tried to move Lost (2004 TV series) to Lost (TV series) after closing an RM discussion, but did not notice that the talk page was move protected, causing me to attempt a manual round robin and probably botching something in the process. I am hoping this, along with all the redirects listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Lost_(2004_TV_series) can be deleted, as opposed to filling somebody's noticeboard with several dozen CSDs.

If they're kept for some reason, I will go about retargeting them, but from the look of it none of them are actually linked to outside of the other redirects. They should either qualify for WP:G6 or one of the redirect criteria. ASUKITE 01:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are incoming links to some. Get them straightened out and I don't see why this can't then be speedied. (Or wait a day and a bot should clean up the 2xredirs...) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I can take a look later tonight when I'm back home if the bot hasn't already gotten to them. ASUKITE 16:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

[edit]

Fpoon

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Byron Cemetery

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

Manual of Style:

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

Bibi the butcher

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

Wikipedia:Retarget

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

Good articles on Wikipedia

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

OFM Sykes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#OFM Sykes

Marzipan joyjoys

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Marzipan joyjoys

Great Depression in the Middle East

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Great Depression in the Middle East

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

Murgh

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus Sorry, this is just a unsalvagable mess, with no agreement on anything to do. Three different retargets were proposed here, none of which were agreed to by anyone other than their proposer. And there's enough support for the status quo that I'm not forced to make a bartender's close. So it goes.

Snoutlet

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Snoutlet

Bleach (games)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Bleach (games)

Wikipedia:STAYONTOPIC

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

Thailan

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

Fortnit

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

Sputnik (serach engine)

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

Mothra Leo

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

Banorant

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

Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

NJHS

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

2029 in spaceflight

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

Hat Simulator

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

PKS 0451-28

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

Tesonet

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

The Human Aquarium

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

DQw4w9WgXcQ

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

IRAS 13349+1428

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

Putting wedge

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Putting wedge

Ape Escape Racer

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

Stone Jesus

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

Jimboboii

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

Lanyard class

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Lanyard class

November 7

[edit]

Wikipedia:OPENLETTER

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

History of the United States (2008–2024)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#History of the United States (2008–2024)

Mongola

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Mongola

Waliugi

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

Counrty

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

Kentuchy

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Kentuchy

Reccomend

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

Gardern

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

Stephoscope

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Stephoscope

Monterrey La Raza (current)

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

Wikipedia:Relable sources

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

Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIMRED

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

Pauletta Brupbakher

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Pauletta Brupbakher

Racially motivated violence

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Racially motivated violence

Blind tasting

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Blind tasting

FC Türkiye II

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#FC Türkiye II

Show Business (TV series)

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

Love Me (TV series)

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

Wikipedia:Picture turorial

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

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

[edit]

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

Helpful to whom exactly? Personally, I search for a meme expecting information about a meme. 90% of people familiar with the meme know it's from Yu-Gi-Oh (or seems to be that way from [51], where it is discussed on KnowYourMeme). At the very least, readers expect to read about the thing they searched about. So readers get here thinking "oh so the meme is discussed on this page, great!" One then spends the next 50 thousand bytes searching and searching and nope, zero context, zero benefit. We don't need a redirect for "it's time to d-d-d-d-duel" if all it's going to imply is "this term is synonymous with the entire concept of the Yu-Gi-Oh! general topic article, with no specific section or anchor implied."
Memes are novel. I'm not surprised that people WANT to learn about it here, yet still not useful as a 1-to-1 redirect as it currently leaves people lost on a page without any information for their meme search term, and no mention of "meme" at Yu-Gi-Oh. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. This isn't simply a meme-- it's a direct quotation from the original opening sequence for the English dub of this specific anime, with most meme-ification of this quote simply extending the "d-d-d-d-d-d" stuttery part, or otherwise playing around with it and the Yu-Gi-Oh anime's characters in general. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's a meme then. I'm well aware of the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence in question, and the associated meme and its derivations. It's clearly not a "direct quotation", else this text (hyphens and all) would appear in the episode transcript here: [52]. Regardless, thank you for suggesting a more-related option. But it's still an unmentioned meme. How does this have any bearing on the likelihood of typing a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by "uel"? And all to end up at an article for the series where the meme being sought isn't mentioned, nor any of the meme-spellings? Even in the anime and the video you linked, they stutter like 9 times, so even that aspect isn't accurate within this redirect, and none of It's time to duel, It's time to d-duel, It's time to d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-duel (is nommed), It's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel exist, or It's time to dduel, It's time to ddduel, It's time to dddduel, or It's time to ddddduel for that matter. Past precedent has indicated that random hyphens inserted into words is not useful, obfuscates the terms that are actually spoken, and makes searches impractical. And at least for these precedent discussions, they were for quotes which appeared at the target, iirc (in an unmodified/natural state that is, I think). The quote is officially "it's time to duel". Anything beyond that, makes it a meme/meme version. Someone committing to the 5 ds/4 hyphens combination is deliberately typing in a meme into the search engine, so if maintained, the content should reflect that. Neither the real version nor any of the meme variations are covered at the new suggested target either, and Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!, btw. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding this hyphens, Hyphenation Expert; imo you have definitely earned the title of "expert in hyphenation" for this one 😌 lol.
    For that redirect, the title stutters 8 times, which that number happens to have a bit more basis in reality, compared to this one which stutters 4. (Side note, the edit summary for that redirect is... certainly interesting...). I'm hesitant to bundle these though, as the redirect you found here at least sounds a bit closer to what occurs in the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence, with the ~correct amount of 8 or 9 ds, so slightly more plausible. There may be a case for deletion there (no other du-du-dus exist), but I think the smaller scope and just one redirect here is fine for now. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As mentioned by Fieari, pageviews in the last (recorded) decade are close to ~2000. This year itself, the pageviews are close to ~500. I used the backlink checker to see if we have a permanent link somewhere, but found only edwardbetts.com/find_link/Wikipedia_community which lists the current RfD. There was a 4-year old reddit discussion asking for the number of Ds, and there was no conclusion, participants counted 7, and 8 and 9, but I agree 4 is easier to type, but so would 3 or 2, but people have been using 4 too. That discussion was in December 2020, although our pageview spike happened in November 2020. Searching for the term with 4 Ds on Google brings up several videos and articles. Ultimately, we don't have a redirect or mention of the non-stuttered phrase It's time to duel. We also don't know if the possible hundreds of readers reaching the redirect, are using the English phrase to reach the article on the series/franchise. Jay 💬 17:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conerve

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

Cowboy Luttrell

[edit]

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

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

April 31

[edit]

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

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

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

Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Her Royal Hotness

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

Site-specific Comedy Opera

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete consensus is the current target is inappropriate, and no better target has been identified

2025 Dutch general election

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#2025 Dutch general election

三州府

[edit]

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

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

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

The Licensing Letter

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#The Licensing Letter

Żwaniec

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

Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative

Manush Shah

[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=1260299728"