"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Request for comment.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 23 113 0 136
TfD 0 0 3 0 3
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
RfD 0 2 16 0 18
AfD 0 0 7 0 7

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

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

Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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?


Shortcut

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects
"WP:RDELETE" redirects here. For revision deletion, see Wikipedia:Revision deletion. For deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first or that it has 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. 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

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

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

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

Shortcut
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list

July 1

Wikipedia:NPLACE

This should probably target Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places since WP:PLACEOUTCOMES is not a notability policy. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sticky

Implausible misspelling: Similarly titled Wikipedia:STICKY is a redirect to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. STiki is no longer functional since March 2020. I suggest retargeting to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people and adding a hatnote at the top of Wikipedia:STiki linking to that page. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complex algebra

Confusing: Probalbly, most people searching this phrase would search algebra over the complex numbers. D.Lazard (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi film of 2022

Redirect left over from page move. No reason to search for the grammatically incorrect singular "list of film" instead of "list of films". ComplexRational (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems like a plausible misspelling. FAdesdae378 21:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

93 FM

There are a lot of 93.0 FMs, so I don't see the point of linking specifically to this station. Iseult Δx parlez moi 09:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create 93.0 FM as a WP:SETINDEX and retarget there. (If no one else does, I'll start a draft in the next couple of days.) Compare e.g. 95 FM and 97 FM. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If necessary re-create in future to 93.0 FM. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify (drafted below the RfD) stations that identify as 93 on the FM dial are frequently not located at "93.0MHz" since "93" is a marketing exercise -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joey's

This is a redirect from move of an article, Joey Gosiengfiao, from an obviously malformed title. It was previously a redirect to 26th Milestone, Isle of Man before the article was created, and it only lasted as an article at this title for two days. IMO this should be redirected to Joey as ambiguous or straight up deleted. eviolite (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Joey's Seafood Restaurants since this restaurant chain was previously known as "Joey's Only", and some readers searching for these restaurants may find this redirect helpful. CycloneYoris talk! 02:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to 26th Milestone, Isle of Man (aka Joey's) unless there are other articles which could be referred to by this title. Joey's Seafood Restaurants or Joey's Only is only a partial title match. Jay (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate due to all the debate and confusion presented both in the redirect's editing history and this very RFD. There is no primary topic for this term, it seems. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Forbes (cricketer)

Redirect was improperly re-created immediately after the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Forbes (cricketer) (2nd nomination). Consensus in that discussion was to delete, not redirect, with several editors specifically opposing a redirect. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Pavlovsky (gymnast)

Redirect was inappropriately created immediately after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Pavlovsky was closed as Delete. –dlthewave ☎ 16:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agaricus urinascens

This redirect should be deleted, as the redirect topic is a valid species and not a synonym of the target species. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Esculenta's reasoning. I haven't seen this kind of redirect with the plant articles I've been working on so this is something I'm going to keep an eye out for. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 19:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-young

There are a lot of Hayoungs/Ha-youngs/Ha youngs. No clear justification for a special redirect to this actress. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate by creating a given name article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🫤

Described here, "Face With Diagonal Mouth", ambiguous facial expression. Delete, retarget to Emoji, or to its unicode block. signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to go literal with this one and say retarget to Diagonal. -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the emoji redirect. A better target might be appropriate, if one is proposed, please ping me. Oppose redirecting to Diagonal as I doubt anyone using this emoji is meaning that. Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🫥

Described here, "Dotted Line Face", ambiguous emoji that should be deleted, retargeted to Emoji, or pointed at its unicode block. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as perhaps the primary topic. I considered being literal with this one, but Dotted line isn't very helpful. I thought the Emojipedia entry had a cool fact: An established comic book trope, dotted lines around a character can represent someone that is invisible or hidden. There doesn't seem to be a good landing spot for hidden or hide so that leaves invisibility. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the emoji redirect but target to a better target. This isn't an invisibility emoji and as can be seen here not all versions of this emoji is white. Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Hafeez

Not mentioned at the target, likely independently notable (see: [1]), delete to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Rosguill's rationale. Being creator of the redirect, I've also requested CSD G7. Thanks AHatd (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Amin al-Hafiz where Amin Hafez and Amin Hafiz also redirect. Jay (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well "hafeez" and "Hafiz" are two different surnames. And this case redirect under discussion is intended for this Amin Hafeez [2] [3] [4], who used to work for the Geo News. I don't see anywhere Amin al-Hafiz being called Amin Hafeez, so it'll be not very appropriate to retarget this Amin Hafeez to Amin al-Hafiz. Thanks AHatd (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Jay as a plausible misspelling (I doubt most English readers will be attuned to differences in vowel length in Arabic). Of course, editors should be free to expand into an article about the other person (though please don't forget to add a hatnote). – Uanfala (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hodge manifold

I suggest retarget to Kähler manifold or Hodge theory. Because I think a Kähler manifold M is called a Hodge manifold (variety) if its Kähler metric is a Hodge metric. SilverMatsu (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction in Mobile

Questionable redirect in general. It's a bit of a leap for me. Iseult Δx parlez moi 03:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iseult thanks for that. But this is to inform you that Problematic smartphone use is known as addition in mobile in Bangla.The name addition in mobile is common in Bangla. that's why when I translate the Problematic smartphone use page in Bangla I use the name addition in mobile . You can see the page here if you transilate the Bangla base page name , you may realize the fact.--Abdullah☆ (Talk) 08:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MdaNoman: 'addiction in mobile' is not a phrase that makes sense in English. As for the translation, my machine translation gives 'mobile phone addiction' or 'addiction to mobile phones', etc. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should be lecturing a native Bengali speaker about Bengali nuances based on your machine translations. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kafka trap

Topic no longer at target page — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I now see that what broke the redirect was MartinPoulter's removal of the topic from the List of fallacies. I've reverted his removal, and added further refs, so, if he still disagrees with it, hopefully we'll thrash it out on the talk page. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

Wikipedia:GOT

I don't know what GOT is, and if everyone can't explain it, I should delete it. Q28 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • GOT refers to Game of Thrones (TV series) which is an adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - GOT is a standard abbreviation for "Game of Thrones", the name of the first book of the series and also of the T.V. series that was created from the books. Fans often refer to the series as the Game of Thrones or GOT series, even though the official title of the series is "A Song of Ice and Fire". The official title is a mouthful, while the 1st book/TV series title is catchy, descriptive, and easier to say. Fieari (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Nova

Retarget to Ark Nova (board game) or change to disambig? Right now, it points to a biography of an artist whose concert was named Ark Nova, a rather borderline meaning. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Eureka Lott Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move article to redirect name per Eureka Lott --Lenticel (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aroostook County Jane Doe

Thanks to overzealous trimming of the target page, this now leads nowhere. This case is recently back in the news, so maybe a proper article is in order. Or at least an entry at the target. Sumanuil. 19:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Content was removed from the target article due to the core policy of WP:No original research. Not convinced that this is a notable topic warranting inclusion in that list or in its own article. As such, there is no need for a redirect. Routine news coverage does not make a topic encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS. We need evidence from secondary and tertiary sources other than the media to prove notability. Further Aroostook County has multiple Jane Does in their cold case files stretching back decades, so the naming of this topic is problematic. 4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who removed the target section. Does anyone not involved in this mess have an opinion? Also, if anything in "the media" doesn't count as a secondary source, then 99% of Wikipedia is OR. And WP:NOTNEWS does not invalidate the use of news outlets as sources. Sumanuil. 20:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sumanuil This is not the place to have this discussion as it is only tangentially related to dealing with this redirect. I am happy to discuss the issues with you on the relevant talk page, but please do not de-rail this nomination with side issues. The use of news sources on Wikipedia is permissible, but should be done with following the policies at WP:Verifiability, WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:SUSTAINED. In this instance, the topic lacked multiple independent secondary sources as required by those policies, and the use of those sources (some primary sources in addition to one secondary reference) was pieced together in a way that violated the no original research policy on wikipedia (i.e. original synthesis). If you wish to discuss this further, please do so at Talk:List of unidentified murder victims in the United States. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Not right now, though. Maybe later. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Sumanuil. 07:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it's not at the target then there is no reason for the redirect to exist. If this jane doe stuff gets added back to the target then we can bring back this redirect. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of murdered American children#1980s. 12,000 pageviews in the last 7 years. No reason to delete if we can provide some information for the reader to go forward. Jay (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of murdered American children#1980s for now, and delink there. I don't generally like redirecting to lists that are clearly developed as being limited to entries with blue links, but it does lead anyone searching this term to the page on enwiki with the most pertinent content. The current target isn't really appropriate anymore because the victim is no longer truly "unidentified" as the mother of the newborn was recently identified. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AccessIRC

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routesplit

Delete as unused; appears to be an abandoned experiment. Useddenim (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:UNC

I thnk r to Wikipedia:Changing username iz better. Q28 (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Absatz-L

This seems to be a German redirect. We don't need the impact of other languages. Q28 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It's only transcluded on one article, Hochwildstelle, which it seems to have been translated from German on 17 February 2016, and then this template was created on that same day. It seems like this should be deleted and be replaced in its one transclusion by {{clear left}}, policy wise: delete per WP:RLOTE. TartarTorte 16:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with TartarTorte's logic, but for future reference the nom's sweeping rationale for deletion "we don't want the impact of other languages" is inappropriate, doesn't chime with Wiki policy such as WP:RLOTE and is potentially offensive. Other languages have a firm place in English Wikipedia, but their use should be appropriate and that has been long recognised. Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good point. Non-english redirects certainly do have their place. TartarTorte 19:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NAMECHANGE

I think this should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes, as with WP:NAMECHANGES. I briefly looked at a lot of the incoming links, and most of them seemed to be typos for the NAMECHANGES redirect. No clear reason why one would be the primary topic or intended retargeting for "name change", and another for "name changes". QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Plug Entertainment

Found this page with an invalid tag for speedy deletion per G7. Not mentioned at the target; it was there but removed from the page due to being false and unsourced. Mori Calliope fan talk 05:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haw.

The current redirect target is a scientist of at best middling notability. However, "Haw." in political and legal contexts overwhelmingly refers to the highly notable U.S. state of Hawaii - see, e.g., the voluminous Google Books results for "Haw." and court, or of "Haw." and law. I would retarget to Haw. BD2412 T 01:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Haw per the above. "Haw." is far to vague to have one clear primary topic; the disambiguation page is the logical retarget here. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Haw, disambiguation looks like the best option here. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hawaii. I won't strenuously object to redirecting to the disambiguation page, but the nominator's own argument shows that when you have a single period after Haw, it overwhelmingly means Hawaii specifically, and people who search wikipedia for "Haw." with the period are likely confused as to what this specific abbreviation means. As such, it should go to what that abbreviation means, directly. Fieari (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I have looked at legal/political sources, not biology sources. I am not confident that there is a primary topic, or that the period is sufficently distinguishing at all. BD2412 T 03:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, restoring the page to this rev. With the period at the end it is clearly an initialism; for someone trying to find out what it means this would be more helpful than having to trawl through the whole of Haw, where the correct answers are somewhat buried. If retarget, then go to Haw, not Hawaii. Hawaii is not the only valid possibility, even if it is more voluminous — current usage is overwhelmingly in the botanical context, even if not numerous. —2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Fantasma (wrestler)

Deletion. Not the subject. El Fantasma is another wrestler, the father of Santos Escobar. El Fantasma is notable for his own article.. Also nominating El Fantasma (wrestler) HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've added "El Fantasma (wrestler)" which wasn't nominated initially by the nom. CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into new article. Hansen SebastianTalk 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split if El Fantasma is notable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the Split, the article only mentions El Fantasma once (His father was a professional wrestler, known as the enmascarado "El Fantasma"). I would prefer the deletion to encourage the article creation, as Lentice said. Sadly, Mexican lucha libre is not my field. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't split Keep until article is made - If El Fantasma is notable enough for his own article, then I'm pretty sure the RfD process in not necessary-- just replace the redirect with a new article. But at the moment there doesn't seem to be enough in the Santos Escobar article to support simply splitting it, and no one has proposed a draft for a new article. Again, if you write a new article, and it is supported with reliable sources establishing notability, I think the normal WP:BRD process is fine for just replacing the redirect with your new article. Until then, I see nothing wrong with leaving the status quo... there is a mention, however brief, in the target article, and that's enough for now. On the other hand, I see the argument for deleting the redirect to encourage someone to try writing the article... I have no real preference here. Changing my !vote to merely voicing my objection to splitting as is... either deletion or keeping makes sense to me. Fieari (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and draftify ...is that an option? There's not enough material for a standalone article right now, but having a draft in place seems like it could be a good way to signal that the subject has potential and attract people to work on expanding it, whereas deletion might just cause it to be forgotten. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strumigenys longamaxilla

This redirect was created as a result of cleanup of page move vandalism at the target page by User:Longamaxilla back in January this year. This user has since been indefinitely blocked as a Vandalism-only account. (The redirect's given page creator, Daniel Mietchen, was actually one of the ones reverting the vandalism) In any case, the name "Strumigenys longamaxilla" has never been used for a species in a scientific publication, and the fact the target page was involved in the first place especially suggests it was an attempt at "correcting" a name honoring an LGBT activist (or the user could be a troll, doesn't make much difference anyway). Therefore I strongly suggest to delete the redirect as there is no value in keeping it for these reasons.

Relevant talk pages for context, if it helps:

(I actually originally nominated this redirect for speedy deletion under WP:G3, but I guess I incorrectly assumed others could figure out the context from the edit history and linked pages... oh well) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unambiguously a made-up name introduced with intent to be disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted Caribbean stingray

Not clear what species this refers to. Not mentioned on any Wikipedia page. Possibly an undescribed species present in the aquarium hobbyist trade. Search engines bring up pages that say this is Urolophus halleri, which doesn't occur in the Caribbean, and Chinese websites that associate this name and Urolophus aurantiacus, which also isn't present in the Caribbean. Plantdrew (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since the nom demonstrated that it does primarily refer to Urolophus species. Common names do not have to be factually correct. For instance, electric eels are not eels. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - 1st google search result says this is the common name for Urolophus: [5]. Here's another page suggesting it as well: [6]. Here's the Chinese site I presume the nominator found: [7]. I also found a number of other pages that refer to a "spotted caribbean stingray" without giving a scientific name at all, but the picture they use looks like it matches. All this is enough to strongly suggest that this redirect is valid, and the name should probably be added to the article as well. I fear the slight possibility of citogenesis, but my intuition says that's not what is happening here. Fieari (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

Me Brain Hurts

This is an orphaned redirect now that the song title has been corrected to My Brain Hurts. No articles link here anymore. 23skidoo (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closed operator

These should redirect to the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Indonesia and Greater Malay

The name of this concept appears to be either Greater Indonesia or Greater Malay. A new user tried to include both in the title but that's not the common practice in Wikipedia. This redirect has no use. Super Ψ Dro 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The topics of Greater Indonesia and Greater Malay are inherently linked and are both addressed at the target page so I don't see it as an XY issue. TartarTorte 16:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then have a page titled Greater Indonesia and a redirect titled Greater Malay. They can be swapped if the latter is more common than the former. We don't have a World War II and Second World War redirect just because the war is commonly known by those two names. Super Ψ Dro 17:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. I was looking at it more from an XY angle, but the point of this being an odd/implausible search term is valid. I'll strike my previous vote to now be weak delete. TartarTorte 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

198 (number)

There is no good reason for this to redirect to its current target (190 (number)) rather than being a red link (or, perhaps, not linked at all). PS. History shows it used to redirect to 190, 200 and even was an article, all versions were disputed without much discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 190 (number) has some minimal information on 198. We would also need to check several complex navigation templates before making this the only number below about 274 which doesn't have either an article or a redirect at n (number). Certes (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is our standard convention for all numbers not notable enough for their own standalone article (as determined recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/198 (number)), but small enough to have a redirect target like this: redirect to a line in an article about their decade or century. There are many many more like this, for 264–268, 272, 274, 275, 278, 279, 282–287, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pups Alone

I'm not sure this movie is notable. But with other cast members including Jennifer Love Hewitt, Malcolm McDowell and Keith David, there is no real reason this should exclusively be a redirect to Danny Trejo's page (which doesn't even mention the movie). So per WP:REDLINK this should probably be deleted. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is unhelpful, useless and misleading to redirect a film page to a cast member, period. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful. Probably a future article as well --Lenticel (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and should WP:REDLINK. Skynxnex (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

Robert B. Cheney

Appears to be an error. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Richard Cheney not Robert Cheney. Nice catch. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC). Neutral. If the commentary is re-added about Cheney's brother, then Keep. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is probably supposed to be a {{R from sibling}}, not a {{R from alternative name}}; Dick has a younger brother named Bob [8], who does not appear to be notable himself: Cheney’s younger brother, Bob, is a civil servant, too, now retired from the Bureau of Land Management. The brother was mentioned back in 2006 when this redirect was created, but is not anymore. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attempted to readd the mention of Bob. I assume it was removed earlier due to dubious sourcing (the source near that sentence was a primary source), but now I've sourced with the New Yorker article instead. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but readd the mention of Bob Cheney to Dick Cheney's page. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optics letters.

It seems implausible a user would type "Optic letters." with a period while searching for Optics Letters, therefore I recommend delete TartarTorte 21:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely useless. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom and above. This. is just search bar clutter. Regards, SONIC678. 17:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavath Singh

This was tagged for speedy deletion to make way for the film article Bhagavath Singh (film), however the redirect creator didn't think it appropriate for the film title to be moved to the title. Bhagat Singh was not known as Bhagavath Singh, and there is no mention at the target, so it is unclear why the redirect exists. Jay (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mention of Bhagavath at Bhagat Singh's article. The creator may have misassumed that the revolutionary's proper name was Bhagavath since Bhagat is a derivative from it. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as redirect creator. The nominator and I had a discussion about this at the redirect talk page. To pull out a couple of my points. The target doesn't mention Bhagavath Singh but the film article does. From Bhagavath_Singh_(film)#Release: "The film opened in December 1998 to negative reviews with a critic from Indolink.com stating that the film spoils the freedom fighter Bhagat Singh's name...". I will be honest and say I can't remember why I did create the redirect but it seems plausible that this film in some way biographical and so therefore redirecting to the primary topic makes sense. If someone could find reviews or even just a plot summary that would likely clarify whether it is unrelated or not. Tassedethe (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel-034

Not included in the list of characters and not mentioned anywhere else on the site. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely add Samuel-034 to the list of characters. It seems the reason why it wasn't their on the first place it's because there was a stand alone article for Samuel-034 on the site and was taken down with the order of merging it with the List of Halo characters what the latter was never done. ImAbetastico (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't merged because the regular contributors to the "list of halo characters" article decided the content in the page history wasn't worth merging, see The discussion here. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See relevant discussion Talk:List of Halo characters/Archive 2#Merge of Samuel-034.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbest Member of Congress

The target article says Scott was characterized as such by the NYT in 1974. I don't know it the NYT 10 dumbest list continued in subsequent years, but I would expect this redirect to take me to something more contemporary. Delete. MB 04:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • New Times (magazine), not the New York Times! Easy mistake to make. No opinion on the merits of this redirect, but more information can be found through searches and the linked page. J947 † edits 05:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the source, its not that he just happened to be on top of a regular poll one time, its that he was overwhelmingly considered such by other members of congress and the media. Similar to Dana Rohrabachers nickname as "Russia's Favorite Congressman". So the redirect is for a nickname specific to one person, not the name of a regular poll. Theres a bit more context in the article of the person who wrote that one-off poll for the New Times. There is no other article on Wikipedia mentioning the same phrase, so I think the redirect is fairly unambiguous. jonas (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: While this was a moniker applied to him, at this point there is no consensus on who it is. While this is the only instance of the term on wikipedia, it does not necessarily make it an appropriate redirect and with a member of congress who has not remained particularly significant after his term, it seems to approach WP:SURPRISE even if there is appropriate rationale behind it. If it is kept, I highly recommend it be protected because this has incredibly high potential for vandalism as a redirect. TartarTorte 18:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I highly doubt that someone using this a search term is doing so to look up someone that was referred as such in a single source almost 50 years ago and I can’t think of a more suitable target.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Euphoria

Current redirect is not main topic ★Trekker (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. There are indeed at least three templates that this title can refer to, but ambiguity like this can be resolved by pages even in template space. The precedents for that along with the long (and confusing) edit history make a disambig page seem like the best option to me. I've drafted one already. Glades12 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate - Keep, or disambiguate per Glades12. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template disambiguation is really only necessary for templates that are used often. These navboxes are used at max, once on a page, and on a very limited number of pages. If not delete, then support disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grounded videos

Redirect topic no longer mentioned on the target page, but these two terms seem to mostly be associated with Vyond/GoAnimate videos. Keep or delete? And "punishment day" could either refer to the type of Vyond video, or a day that a child gets various punishments in real life. Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer 12

I think this redirect page is wrong. Is Internet Explorer 12 called 'Microsoft Edge'? Microsoft Edge is a Chromium browser and Internet Explorer is a HTML browser. So, Internet Explorer and Microsoft Edge are very different browser. So, it needs to delete. Hajoon0102 💬 08:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There is no browser called Internet Explorer 12. ––FormalDude talk 14:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Internet Explorer 12 simply did not exist. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no such version exists. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it matters, I oppose Jay's retarget suggestion because that section offers no information on IE12. That may be a useful section if it were to, hypothetically, explain that IE12 was in development before being scrapped in favor of Edge, or something of the sort, but that is not the case. -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found many articles (including the one cited at Microsoft Edge#Edge Legacy (2014–2019)) that said that the community expected "Spartan" to be the codename for Internet Explorer 12. While I can add this mention there, it would just be WP:POINTY as MS officially did not make a mention. I have notified of this RfD at the Edge's talk page in case someone thinks it's worth a mention. Jay (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At Microsoft Edge#Edge Legacy (2014–2019), it's clear that from the very beginning "Spartan" was reported as a new product separate from Internet Explorer. If there were reputable reports suggesting that "Spartan" was actually the codename for IE12, than sure, feel free to add it. But if it's coming from an unnamed "community", that's trivia akin to the ubiquitous tech-related rumors and whispers that end up not panning out. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Internet Explorer#End of life. The History section at that page has sub-sections sequentially from IE1 to IE11 and End of life following it. Readers looking for the successor of Internet Explorer 11 will get the answer they are looking for. Jay (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Targeting it to Edge is false advertising. Edge is not IE. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not know if there will ever be an IE 12 or not, so it should be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this discussion as delete, but was requested to reopen it and relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The first public release of Microsoft Edge used version 12.10240 of the EdgeHTML rendering engine (see Microsoft Edge#Edge Legacy release history), and was numbered as such as Edge is the spiritual successor of Internet Explorer. As such, the current redirect isn't necessarily inaccurate... but it is likely unnecessary. JPG-GR (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note Tavix's rebuttal and agree with it. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Daniel

Neither is mentioned in the target, nor seems worth mentioning. Suggest deletion of Benjamin Daniel to free up the name for the sailor. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

Uncle Clarence

I was just correcting broken redirects that resulted from vandalism page move of the Clarence Thomas article and came across this one. It is recently created but isn't the result of a mistake, misnomer or typo so I thought I'd bring it to RFD as it seems as inappropriate as moving the Thomas article to a new title that has now been revision deleted from the page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Despite this nickname being overtly offensive and racist to Justice Thomas (a fact that disgusts me personally), it is a verifiable nickname rooted in sourcing. WP:R#DELETE mentions that redirects that are "offensive or abusive" should be deleted; however, the concern of that guideline does not appear to be directed towards redirects of this nature, just stuff like a hypothetical redirect saying "Clarence Thomas sucks". Additionally, non-neutral redirects are considered permissible, especially when covered in reliable sourcing (see WP:RNEUTRAL: perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. and if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral). I see no reason why this nickname shouldn't simply fall in the non-neutral camp. As I said before, this nickname has rooting in sourcing. It's mentioned in the NY Daily News (which is a green lighted source at WP:RSP), Hollywood Reporter, BET, and Fox News. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per checkers. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not a significant enough nickname to be used in the article. Perhaps it could be documented at Clarence Thomas#Public perception? If that were to stick, then I would be at a keep. -- Tavix (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is pretty much the same case as the deletions of Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, and Crooked Hillary. All the articles linked are about the same thing: that Samuel L. Jackson called him that in a new tweet. The standards for reporting on things celebrities do are rock-bottom low. We'll need some proof this nickname has legs, is widely used and notable enough to be encyclopedic. Otherwise it just looks like Wikipedia is endorsing calling him "Uncle Clarence" (I don't like the guy, but sheesh). Nohomersryan (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of Creation

A Google search shows that All of Creation (song) is clearly the primary topic and therefore should be the target. Veverve (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget with hatnote to current article. According to target article this is a partial title match of "All of Creation Rejoices in Thee" but it is still a plausible search term for it. --Lenticel (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's already a hatnote placed at current target article which solves any ambiguity. No need to retarget anywhere else; and I'm not sure if the song is notable enough for it to be considered the primary topic. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs decision on primary topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: a Google search clearly shows the pop song is the primary topic, not the liturgical one. Veverve (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if All of Creation (song) is the primary topic, the article should be moved there over the redirect, instead of the redirect being retargeted. Questions of primary topic thus are usually resolved in WP:RM discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Joint Opposition

Years after draft promotion, would anyone ever need this? Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, but we do usually keep the draft redirects around just because they're cheap and there's no benefit to deleting them. Anarchyte (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this one after disambiguating the title. Should we move the draft title accordingly? It seems cheap, but this seems like more waste of volunteer time... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay based on an RFC from 2016. This is becoming increasingly arcane :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion here is on the Years after draft promotion part, then yes it helps to keep the edit history right from the first edit, regardless of number of years. Jay (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I now get the point about the potential overhead of keeping the draft title in sync with the mainspace title over different moves over the years. It did take some time figuring out the page history of this case, since the mainspace article underwent a move without redirect. I may revise my vote depending on any strong opinions coming in. Jay (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The draft that was at this title is the article now at Joint Opposition (Sri Lanka), so if it is kept it should be pointing there due to the "help article authors find their draft" rationale that pops up by the keepers of these redirects. However, the draft was accepted over five years ago and any benefits from this redirect have long since expired. Couple that with the title mismatch which makes it a bit more confusing to keep it around, so it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:RDRAFT maybe Retarget to Joint Opposition (Sri Lanka). As something that WOULD HAVE been an {{R from avoided double redirect}} (but obviously dont tag as such since it isnt.) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No real reason to delete a redirect like this. The benefits to keeping it are few, but even they outweigh the benefits of deleting it (which also takes more effort). Glades12 (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Mariduena

David Dobrik is a separate person who, although being associated with Mariduena, is not Mariduena. If a Vlog Squad page existed this would make sense, but such page does not exist. Gtag10 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unhelpful and misleading. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to David Dobrik#The Vlog Squad as it is the best place for the Vlog squad in the absence of a separate article on the squad. Jay (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Derbyshire

Propose retarget to John Derbyshire (swimmer), four-time Olympic swimmer, gold medalist, and coach featured in International Swimming Hall of Fame, where he is called "Rob Derbyshire" see (International Swimming Hall of Fame and Olympedia). (In fact, I propose to also rename John Derbyshire's page to "Rob Derbyshire" and have "John Derbyshire (swimmer)" redirect to "Rob".) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was created as a redirect to the swimmer and this stayed for close to 3 years before being retargeted to present target. Disambiguate or hatnote from the primary target. Jay (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to John Derbyshire (swimmer) as his alternative name. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 60-day child-emperor

Appears to be a neologism, should be deleted unless evidence of use can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:EDITS

I think it would be better to redirect to WP:edit count. Q28 (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, WP:Edit count is an essay while the actual list is a stand-alone daily undated accurate list of English Wikipedia edit counts. 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. Agree with Randy Kryn, and it has been traditionally so, it isn't some new, astounding shortcut. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Linde

Used in two articles. In both instances it redirects to the wrong subject, whose Germanized name was also "Friedrich Linde". However, the subject is never referred to by this name, being a Russian of German descent. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Harmless. Not entirely sure why the nom is considering deletion, since this is clearly the Germanized name of the target article's subject. A Google search does show results related to Fedor Linde, though it appears that he didn't use his Germanized name that often. CycloneYoris talk! 08:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Engelmann

Fails WP:R#DELETE #1. It makes readers it unreasonably difficult for readers who are seeking the character by the same name in Frau Margot to find that article. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: Seems like the best way to resolve this where they are both redirects is to create a WP:DAB page. Hatnotes could work as an alternative, but we'd need a WP:PT. TartarTorte 13:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to allow for search. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Draft provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, disambiguation is not suitable here: Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • The disambiguation page is not a complete listing of every person named Walter Engelmann, but a list of articles in which a Walter Engelmann is mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION and SNSL. I gave a more thorough explanation on the intersection of DABMENTION and NOTDIRECTORY here. -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Buder

Per WP:R#DELETE #1. Another Johannes Buder is mentioned at University of Wrocław Botanical Garden. They appear to be different people; the Olympian studied philology, while the other Johannes led the Botanical Garden.

WP:REDLINK may also apply, as it is possible that the other Johannes is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets WP:R#KEEP #1, as well as WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. User has previously recommended a redirect on articles after they added a prod ("I do not mind if you remove the prod and redirect the article"), so I'm unsure why they feel so strongy that they MUST delete the page instead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same post, I also say that if I disagree with a redirect, we can then discuss that at RFD or an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed they two Johannes Buders are different people. The more notable one is de:Johannes Buder, so the ideal outcome would be an article about the botanist with a hatnote for the gymnast. I suggest to move the history under this redirect to Johannes Buder (gymnast) when the article about the botanist is created (which I could do in a few days if there is interest). —Kusma (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or move to Johannes Erwin Buder. Jay (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. Draft provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, disambiguation is not suitable here: Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION and SNSL. I gave a more thorough explanation on the intersection of DABMENTION and NOTDIRECTORY here. -- Tavix (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear children

Another bad redirect from UserTwoSix. Humans are not the only species to bear childern. This should either be deleted or retargeted to something more general (Reproduction? Pregnancy?) 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bear#Reproduction and development. -- Tavix (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget to Childbirth per Tamzin. With my previous !vote, I was throwing something at the wall to see if it would stick. It did not. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think this is a pretty reasonable redirect to exist, since "bear children" is a phrase someone could easily hear, not know, and search Wikipedia for. In which case the question is what the phrase usually refers to. We usually don't call other animals' young children. The article Childbirth is about just birth in humans, for that reason. And I think that's the right logic here, so retarget to Childbirth. Hatnote to Tavix' proposed target (which is also the target of Bear cub): {{redirect|Bear children|bear cubs|Bear#Reproduction and development}} -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Retarget to Childbirth per Tamzin. I found this RfD from the first paragraph of Dwarfism, a use case which would best lead to Childbirth or the current target, either of which is perfectly reasonable. I think it is incorrect to say that other species "bear children", so a more general redirect is unnecessary and would likely break many existing wikilinks. Redirecting to Bear is ridiculous, bordering on humorous, as I have never, ever, heard someone using the phrase in that sense; bears have cubs, not children. Hence, I support the current target, Human reproduction, or Tamzin's suggestion, Childbirth, but I oppose deletion and the other suggested retargets. Toadspike (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad to hear that I have more material for my upcoming stand up tour. Coming soon to a den near you! -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Retarget to Childbirth, per Tamzin. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Childbirth per above. The phrase bear children is usually applied to humans; other species are more often said to bear young. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Initially I thought this was a Neelix redirect because it certainly sounds like one. However, it is too ambiguous whether it is referring to bear children or bearing children, therefore it should be deleted to let the search engine actually do its job. Redirects that interfere with the proper functioning of search shouldn't be allowed to stand. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bear paw.jpgThis user supports the right to arm bears.

(Off-topic ... bear with me) Note that Bear arms (disambiguation) has a See also to Bear#Morphology. Jay (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Childbirth. The possibility of someone using this phrase to search for the children of bears or for carrying children seems vanishingly remote. BD2412 T 02:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer [Bear # Reproduction and development] over childbirth. I think it is a bit WP:SURPRISE ing to go to humans when you type the word bear. I get that it is a verb, but it seems quite implausible for everyday speech. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the origin of the term may refer to "bearing down" during childbirth, in common use the term is used more broadly to refer to the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth, so the current target seems more appropriate. For that matter, Child bearing currently redirects to Pregnancy. However, I'm not strongly opposed to a retarget to childbirth. A hatnote to Bear cub can be used for anyone searching for that. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oshkosh International Folk Festival

  • Delete Not mentioned in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to List of folk festivals#Wisconsin and make it a redlink there. Jay (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by "refine" you mean "retarget" then it wouldn't be a redlink. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, retarget. The refining part was to indicate that it can point to the specific section. I didn't get your point about then it wouldn't be a redlink. Why can't we make it a redlink there? Jay (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redlinks occur when a link doesn't exist. This link would exist (as a circular redirect). I think you mean "unlink". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has no substantive content about this subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fools' Day

Retarget to Fool's Day, or delete altogether: Whereas it only takes moving the apostrophe to go from "Fools' Day" to the song, the April Fools' Day page does not state that the day is simply known as "Fools' Day". Also, the redirect is unlinked to. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the Day is more often called "April Fools" than "Fools Day", it does not mean that "Fools' Day" and its variants should not be redirect pages to April Fools' Day. They are still the Day's alternative names.--Neo-Jay (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Fool's Day (disambiguation). To varying degrees, these can all be misspellings of the song titles or a nickname of the day, so probably best to send users to the disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be a malplaced dab if we were to have Fools' Day -> Fool's Day (disambiguation), notwithstanding the small detail of the apostrophe? In this case, should we consider moving Fool's Day (disambiguation) to Fools' Day? NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be malplaced (since Fool's Day currently has a primary topic), but it's an open question what title a dab page should have when multiple ambiguous terms are disambiguated there (combined dab page) per WP:DABNAME. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and I also support moving Fool's Day to Fool's Day (song). The song is a clear reference to the day. The day clearly can be (and is) called "Fool's Day" sometimes, regardless of whether this is expressly mentioned in the article... [9] This google nGram shows that "Fool's day" is used at the start of a sentence without saying "April", but searching for "fool's day -april" [10] returns 0 results, showing that these references to a "Fool's day" are in fact referring to the one in April. Despite the existence of the disambiguation page, this is an unambiguous redirect with a primary topic. If they were actually looking for the song, they can easily find the disambiguation page once they reach the page for the day. Fieari (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Colonialism

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

Java Edition

A few searches doesn't suggest to me that there is a significant differance in meaning between these two capitalisations, so I think they should be syncronised to point at the same place. From a few searches the overwhelming primary topic here seems to be minecraft. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom to MC Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Minecraft. The Java platform is never referred to as "Java edition". There seem to be no other works or programs I can find that refer to themselves as "Java edition". This honestly does appear to be an unambiguous name for a single thing, and it is popular enough to be a valid search term. Fieari (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Minecraft per Fieari. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triple threat (entertainer)

The subsection covering "triple threat" was removed in April by @Drmies, and the article now makes no mention of this term. ––FormalDude talk 14:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to wiktionary entry, per Jay. Fieari (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:School

Delete redirect as there are no current transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No problems with this redirect have been identified. Being unused isn't a valid reason for deletion. - Eureka Lott 00:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of the redirect template doesn't infer that it's an infobox. Could lead to misuse. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eureka Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-"infobox" prefixed templates should never be used as redirects in articles for infoboxes. We have standardized on this name and it makes it clear to everyone what type of template this is. Additionaly, there are many other templates this redirect could fit just as much, if not more, including Template:School-stub, Template:Schools and others. Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this was the infobox template until it was moved via copy-and-paste in 2005. Deleting it could create issues for people digging back into article histories. - Eureka Lott 22:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive delsorts

Four inactive delsorts that were redirected in 2007. I had intended to create a delsort for Tanzania, as many English-language media sources exist from this country and the associated WikiProject has about 7,000 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazeem (Skyrim)

Delete. The man is not mentioned at the article. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete triggered a lot of players in game but is otherwise non notable in or outside the game --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not even being brought up in the article. The character might be a meme but we don't need to redirect every single character name to the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel

Implausible. People will not type the four apostrophes. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible spelling variant --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Implausible. If it used actual "s that would be different... but not apostrophes like this. Fieari (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we should be getting a proper title sometime soon anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unnecessary. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:0104

I propose retargeting this redirect to Wikipedia:April Fools since it represents 01/04 (i.e. April Fools' Day), not specifically the Day's rules. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom as WP:4-1 is an official shortcut to WP:April Fools. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 19:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game

Another unhelpful and purposeless redirects. The game has a title. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no longer of any help to the reader. Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this overly generic redirect. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all Clearly misleading to have a redirect to an untitled game point to a game with a title, and at present there is no good target to point these to. I also suggest salting because this cycle will repeat every time a new Sonic game is announced. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Mellohi. – The Grid (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Geouf

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

University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication

School is worthy of article but article is a bit promotional and needs to be cleaned up Wiseoleman17 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to Afd. Looks like this has been WP:BLARed and restored 6 times since 2019 by various editors, which is ridiculous. The article was last redirected on 6 June 2022. The article was discussed at Afd in 2015 where the consensus was to cleanup the article. If the edits since 2015 have not resolved the article's issues to the satisfaction of all involved editors, Afd is the proper venue to reach consensus on the fate of the page. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair comment. 24.85.227.103 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to Afd per Mdewman6. --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain and page protect for at least a month The redirect is perhaps best right now as this back and forth redirect removal is only recent. – The Grid (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

WikiProject Chemistry

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not necessarily because of the five-year-old consensus. My opinion is based purely on the redirect's implausibility. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Surprised there is no speedy criteria for this. -DePiep (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This indeed should be speedy-able if it isn't. Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment same at XfD#WikiProject_Alaska. More candidates in the List. -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German Wine Fund

pretty sure interwiki redirects are not allowed? If the fund is notable it should be redlinked. (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure?

A soft redirect is a replacement of usual or "hard" redirect and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project

— Guarapiranga ☎ 23:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those soft redirects are meant for things like wiktionary and wikiquote (though equally ridiculous). If we allowed redirects to other lang projects we'd have a billion redirects to subjects that wouldn't qualify under enwiki's inclusion criteria. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Soft redirect, Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they are generally unhelpful to English-language readers. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected, Pppery, thanks. I see that guideline was introduced over 13 years ago, and seems outdated at this day and age of ubiquitous automated webpage translation tools. Redirecting to non-enwikis wouldn't produce "billion redirects", as Praxidicae imagined; only those not already covered by an English article (such as the German Wine Fund), and that, as she correctly pointed out, would "qualify under enwiki's inclusion criteria" (but that's a discussion to have there, not here). — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redlinks for notable pages awaiting creation is a good thing as it indicates that there is a page needing creation. Gusfriend (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Bagarre

Can't find any significant connection between this title and its target, even when specifying that results also mention Elvis. Target section removed in September 2021 due to apparent lack of notability. Still mentioned at Amanda Lear discography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia State Route 243

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

Army of Holland (France)

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

Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force

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

R.O.S.E

There is a similarly titled target R.O.S.E. which is an album by Jessie J. Not sure why the redirect exists without the period at the end. Delete. Not a plausible search term. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, retarget if the current target is not considered appropriate then. I created it because I had seen it in Google search results without the period the end; I would not have done so if I had not seen it, but as it was years ago, I'd be damned if I could find it again. There are plenty of acronyms where periods are left off the end letter but kept only between the letters; S.O.S for instance is one; U.S is another. It's a bit of a stretch to say it's "not plausible" when some readers clearly type acronyms like this, hence similar redirects. Ss112 22:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, as always, hard to Google for a punctuation variant, but this forum thread from 2006 does suggest that this punctuation is not-unheard-of. So I'd say keep as a WP:SMALLDETAILS distinction from R.O.S.E.. If the article is deleted before this RfD closes, I'm undecided as to whether the redirect should go too (it would be speedied G8 if not for the active RfD, after all), or whether it should be retargeted to the album. I lean toward deletion in that case, absence evidence that this punctuation variant has been used to refer to the album. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO both R.O.S.E. and R.O.S.E should be redirected to Rose (disambiguation). The inclusion / exclusion of the period is so small and minor it could easily be missed particularly as R.O.S.E. the album is likely to attract a different audience to R.O.S.E the game. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David's

Highly highly ambiguous as the possesive form of a very common name. I don't think a chain of 25 supermarkets in Texas is what most people would be expecting to find if they searched for this. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, which is the recommended solution when something is "highly highly ambiguous". The supermarket and David's Bridal are the only ones I can find that popularly go by "David's", but a see also to David (disambiguation) and St. David's should cover the common "possessive of David" use. -- Tavix (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Tavix. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to David (disambiguation) as the possessive of the word "David". NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone is searching for David's and not David, they are unlikely to be looking for the name so the disambiguation page is not helpful. Mark's is an article and similar redirects such as John's don't exist; Matthew's is automatically redirected to Matthew S when using the search button. This company is usually known as David's and the only reason it is not the article title is that the company has other brands, whereas the other is not usually referred to just as David's in sources. There can be a link to the disambiguation page.82.132.186.43 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to David (disambiguation) Supermarket chain is now defunct with a small service area, and there are other businesses called "David's" in the world. Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to David (disambiguation) per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Tavix. If retargeted to the existing dab page at David (disambiguation), the entries Tavix mentions and the current target must be added there (making it a combined dab page). David's (disambiguation) should be created as a redirect as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Consort Mei

Consort Mei was a disambiguation page with two entries - Jiang Caipin and Noble Consort Wen - but has been redirected to Jiang Caipin by @Yinweiaiqing:. Noble Consort Mei is a redirect to Noble Consort Wen. Is this correct? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Private Jenkins

Not mentioned in the target article. There are a bunch of games with characters called "private Jenkins" in reference to Leeroy Jenkins, and a few real people. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shep Unplugged

During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged, the nominator repeatedly rebutted comments by other users because none of the sources provided are simultaneously reliable and support the name of the talk show. I was likewise unable to confirm this title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close per WP:RENOM. The AFD was closed eight days ago. There's no sense in re-litigating this now. If you have an issue with the closure, please bring it to WP:DRV. - Eureka Lott 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree this is a renomination, this is a fundamentally different question. The AfD asks whether or not there should be an article on the topic, the RfD asks whether or or not there should be a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. There are only two potential outcomes here, should the discussion continue. Participants rehash the same issues already discussed (which is already happening), and:
  1. The discussion reaches a different conclusion than the AFD, contradicting the !voters in the recent discussion and potentially opening up more avenues for controversy; or
  2. It reaches the same conclusion, after expending unnecessary time and energy to end up exactly where we started. - Eureka Lott 01:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with the RfD finding a different result than the AfD. It seems in the AfD, participants got hung up on WP:ATD without realizing that a redirect is problematic, and/or assumed there would be material to merge and a redirect would then be cromulent. However, that did not occur and we are left with the unfortunate situation we now find ourselves in. Bringing the issue to RfD is a Good Thing because participants then get a chance to rectify the problem: either find sourcing for this to add a referenced mention of "Shep Unplugged" to the target or delete the redirect. I offered a "conditional delete" because, from what I read, I am optimistic that such a sourced mention can be added (which would be the "same conclusion" case you mentioned, but with the benefit of improving the target article which is never a waste of time or energy). Clamoring for a premature close to this discussion on shaky procedural grounds does not help bring this to a amicable conclusion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting ("They have a potentially useful page history", "They aid searches on certain terms", and "Someone finds them useful"). Here are three comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged that support retention of this redirect:
    1. From Skynxnex: "The evidence I've found is a New York Red Bulls fan blog post from April 2008 that mentions it, [11](archive: [12]): MSG.com's Video Library (Check out Shep Unplugged, a recap of the Revs match, and more). Sadly, it appears that MSG Networks pretty completely have lost/scrubbed basically all content from before ~2018 but the original Wiki article seems earnest enough plus the non-Wiki sourced blog post makes it seem to have existed."
    2. From Sammi Brie: "There's definitely enough circumstantial evidence to prove that this thing existed, but at no time should it have ever been labeled as notable, and the fact it falls in the 2000s (the pre-social-media, few-live-websites-today "dark ages" for this type of search) does not do any favors. I submit a forum post from 2008: He has also been the lead analyst for the MetroStars and the re-branded New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer for several years. During these broadcasts, Shep hosts a segment during halftime entitled Shep Unplugged. Shep is usually outspoken during this segment about league issues and global soccer news."
    3. From Dream Focus: "I found him mentioned here http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/07/conflict_of_interest.html with a comment statement about his "unplugged" segment. I believe it was a real thing. Not enough information for a standalone article so just redirect it."
    Cunard (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per Eureka Lott (WP:RENOM), and if not, Keep per Cunard. starship.paint (exalt) 09:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same reasons as above. Oaktree b (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, @Cunard for the ping. I think the redirect should remain as sites confirmed that this segment existed. Thanks, Cunard, for aggregating those links that were presented in the AfD. The RBNY post is a blog, but the link is to the network's own site. I wasn't able to access a media site on the internet archive, but it's possible one of the other archive sites would have it. If offline sources are (and should be) OK, there's no reason to penalize a pre-social media show whose web format didn't archive well. The segment was by no means notable, which is why no one at the AfD was arguing for a keep, but it makes sense to help the reader learn more about Messing's career. This is not a BLP issue.
@LaundryPizza03 the nominator repeatedly rebutted comments by other users because nearly every !voter disagrees with him doesn't make him repeating himself and utterly bludgeoning the discussion have more weight. I'm not sure who you're so against a redirect existing @TenPoundHammer when we know Shep Messing had a broadcast career that included the MSG halftime show. It helps the reader and doesn't harm Wikipedia for this to exist. Star Mississippi 11:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So a blog pointing to a link that isn't in the Wayback Machine is considered sufficient evidence? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link is in the wayback machine. The media content is not. Star Mississippi 15:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nine people said to redirect it, two said to delete it, it was closed as redirect. Dream Focus 11:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete unless content on this subject is added to the article. As of now, if I were to be seeking specific information on "Shep Unplugged" I would not be able to find it at the place I was redirected to, which is problematic. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable force

This could apply to things besides law enforcement. Delete as too vague. MB 00:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quran.com

Mustafa Khattab’s translation is not the only translation on Quran.com. 37.56.21.106 (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and probably as potential article. I can't find potential targets for this redirect but I found several articles that have it as a reference. --Lenticel (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

Kirby's Dreamland 4

Misleading, as both terms are not mentioned in their respective target articles. They do share similarities in that both are traditional Kirby games for home gaming consoles, with Kirby 64 following 1997's Kirby's Dream Land 3, but nothing in the articles indicates that these were meant to be direct sequels. (Basically copy and pasted my rationale from this discussion.) LBWP (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AY

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

Discrimination against trans women

Discrimination against transgender men is its own page, but this is a redirect. Instead, it should be targeted at transmisogyny. Which is more appropriate? Or more complete — Tazuco PICOL icon Mail.svg 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placer Dam

This appears to be a misnomer which an editor recently unable to find sources to support, leading to a page move. Unless editors can find evidence attesting this as an alternative name, the redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from move}}. It may be wrong, but the article was at that title since 2008. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added Placer dam which points to the same target. There seem to be other non-notable dams correctly known as Placer Dam, e.g. [13] (southern edge of the map, second square from the right); additionally placer dam in sentence case seems to be a a type of dam [14] (related to placer mining?) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Sex Ever

The page was recently deleted through this AfD. The decision stated, in conclusion, the following: "The case was not made that a redirect is within policy or desirable due to how common the phrase is." However, as soon as admin Guerillero enforced the AfD decision and deleted the page, it was recreated immediately by editor Sangdeboeuf, with the edit summary "redirecting to [another article] per WP:CHEAP & WP:DIFFCAPS – notwithstanding [the AfD outcome]". I propose that the original AfD decision be enforced to the letter and the article deleted entirely, instead of being turned into a redirect. Otherwise, there is no point in AfD discussions, nor in following AfD decisions. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC) -The Gnome (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging, per WP:AFDHOWTO, Guerillero, TenPoundHammer, Gene93k, Donaldd23, Mrschimpf, Ritchie333, Bookworm857158367, Sangdeboeuf. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per policy, per the AFD close as noted in the nom here: a three-week-ago XFD close should stand. If someone has new information not available during an XFD discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place after having attempted to discuss it directly with the XFD closer rather than simply recreating it knowing full well it's against the close. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and WP:DIFFCAPS. The redirect is useful (several other pages mention this program), not harmful, and typographically distinct from the non–title case phrase the best sex ever. The previous article was not recreated, so that objection is moot. The DIFFCAPS issue was not raised at AfD, so is not affected by the outcome of that discussion. Rather than these spurious procedural rationales, the nominator and others should cite specific WP:PG-based reasons for deleting the redirect itself. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An XFD close is pretty much the definition of there being a discussion with consensus declared of it; WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and none of the parts of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy are "I don't like the close, so I'm going to go against it and you'll all just accept it". DMacks (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE is also policy. One of the ways it can change is by introducing previously unconsidered arguments. DIFFCAPS is such an argument. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you had new arguments to offer, Sangdeboeuf, which, in your opinion, might have altered consensus, you should have contested the AfD decision instead of "boldly" violating it. -The Gnome (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd appreciate it, Sangdeboeuf, if you kept invective to a minimum, or, preferably, away from any interaction with fellow editors. Arguing that the reasons I propose this deletion are wrong, false, misguided, misinformed, etc, would be obviously and entirely legitimate. Even arguing that my "rationales" are about procedure, and implying "not on substance," would also be fine. But claiming that I offer spurious arguments is a smear. Suggesting I submit something that is "fake" and "not being what it purports to be", per the dictionary, is ignoring WP:AGF. Kindly be careful with such missteps. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken, again. I never accused anyone of intending to mislead. Take care. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying then you do not know the meaning of the term "spurious argument." Fair enough, but now that, hopefully, you know it means an argument that is fake, kindly refrain from using the term without cause. -The Gnome (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying you do not know the meaning of WP:AGF. Something can be false without being intentionally so. Cheers! -Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the meaning of WP:AGF. Something can indeed be false without being intentionally so. Not the case when something is spurious. -The Gnome (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:a hit dog will holler. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Took some time but Q.E.D. -The Gnome (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a circumvention of AfD consensus. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a decades-old, obscure Skinemax show, rightfully deleted. Absent the show, "the best sex ever" is just a generic term. Btw, there's a lot of cruft at List of Cinemax original programming that is ripe for XfDs as well. Zaathras (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrase "the best sex ever" is too common an expression, and the association with the little-remarked Cinemax content is too weak to justify the target as a plausible destination. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My understanding is that a redirect created at a page that was deleted as the result of a discussion at Afd does not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G4 because a redirect is substantially different from an article. That said, while I agree consensus can change, that takes time, and creating a redirect at a page that was recently deleted as the result of a deletion discussion is disruptive and contrary to existing consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10001 (number)

10001 (number) → 10,000#10001 to 10999  (links · history · stats)[ Closure: (@subpage) ]

The result of the discussion was delete after replacement as discussed. 176.98.158.31 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:G4. D.Lazard (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, G4 doesn't apply as the result of an Articles for deletion discussion does not apply to a redirect. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    G means General, not Article, and the previous RfD was a deletion discussion, since the conclusion was delete. D.Lazard (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see a previous RfD discussion, only one for AfD. While some participants of that discussion suggested no redirect and no merge, there is no consensus for such. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I know of CSD rules, redirects take G and R but not A criteria. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, G4 stats that it applies to sufficiently identical copies which isn’t the case here.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect was made 16 years after the AfD discussion. The number isn't notable enough for a standalone article but I don't see any harm in keeping it as a redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since many other numbers have a redirect in this fashion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after setting aside the WP:CSD and WP:OSE arguments that aren't applicable. This number is not discussed at the target, so someone wanting information on this specific number will not be helped by where they end up. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Sending readers to an article where this number is not covered is not helpful. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trace College

Redirecting a school to a city where it belongs seems very implausible. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Properties

As far as know, the plural does not exist for the target meaning. Should be retargeted to Property (philosophy) or Property (mathematics). I suggest the first one, as the second one may be viewed as a subtopic. Another possibility would be to redirect to Property (disambiguation) D.Lazard (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Force choke

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete, R3

Dissociality

These should point to the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect both to Antisocial personality disorder as the other article only mentions "dissocial" in the context of the disorder, while the disorder article explains that "dissocial personality disorder focuses on affective deficits" and thus explains it better. GreenReaper (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both should redirect to Anti-social behaviour. I originally created the Dissociality redirect for use at ICD-11. In the ICD-11, there are no separate personality disorder categories in the traditional sense. Instead, the ICD-11 uses two categories: Personality disorder (6D10) and Personality difficulty (QE50.7). Both are measured by five treats, with Dissociality (6D11.2) being one of them. Both redirects should not point to Antisocial personality disorder because the ICD-11 considers this category to be somewhat obsolete, even though many believe that category-based diagnosing should be retained. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epikh Pro

Not mentioned at target, article previously at this location (converted back to redirect for lack of apparent notability) doesn't mention target. firefly ( t · c ) 10:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously at location was meant to be a draft page. Epikh Pro (subject of new article) and Symbolyc One (S1) are two different people. S1 is Epikh Pro's colleague and former business partner, mentioned in incomplete article that has been removed. Due to the incorrect redirect, I would like the redirect to stay deleted, and the previous article restored as a draft so the article can be completed, fully sourced, and updated. As long as the redirect stays in place it inhibits the ability for an article to be written for this multi-platinum, twice Grammy-nominated, ASCAP award winning producer. 247ice (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify previous article, and delete redirect per creators request. I think that this article has some potential but due to quality, sourcing, and potential WP:COI issues it really needs to go through WP:AFC. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have split the history (hopefully correctly; another admin is welcome to check and fix if needed) such that (a) the current version and its history are the redirect being discussed and (b) the draft article and its history are now at Draft:Epikh Pro. --Kinu t/c 19:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terço dos Homens (Men's Rosary)

I would like this redirect deleted because it mixes English and Portuguese. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lebro

Not sure what this means. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tetramethylammonium auride

I don't think it is a good idea to link to a different compound like this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as outright misleading. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Gold#Rare oxidation states if this target is deemed inappropriate. Note that a {{visible anchor}} could also be used on this target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per 1234qwer1234qwer4 if not delete. An article about a group or class is a reasonable target for redirects about specific members of the class that don't have their own article. A redirect from one member of a class to a different one when there is a class article is confusing and makes it harder to build the web. DMacks (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with actual article. But better yet, let's stub this thing. It's a notable chemical (first of a certain type to be made). User:DMacks/Tetramethylammonium auride. Anyone with sufficient rights is free to move this to mainspace, no need to leave a redirect. DMacks (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with the draft created by DMacks, which is a reasonable chemical stub. It's nice to have the ideal solution as an option, so thank you for creating that. --Kinu t/c 21:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move the draft to title. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

Sze Kai-Kit

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

Draft:Yasmeen Fletcher

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

List of Bangladeshi film of 2022

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 1#List of Bangladeshi film of 2022

Street Design of Santa Margherita

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

Border of Santa Margherita Ligure

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

93 FM

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 1#93 FM

2027 French presidential election

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

🫠

My computer can't even render this one, but based on the other alchemical redirects created by this editor (see below), I imagine that it is likely an alchemical sign. Delete unless evidence can be found that this sign unambiguously refers to melting. signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill According to a google search this emoji is a "melting face". 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, I see it here as well. I guess it's relatively unambiguous, but it still doesn't seem particularly useful to readers and would lean towards deletion, redirecting to Emoji, or redirecting to a unicode block. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that deletion is probably the best outcome per WP:REMOJI. "someone's face melting" is not an actual encyclopaedic topic and it's rather ambiguous, the current target isn't really a good fit, I imagine most people would use it to refer to warm weather, hyperthermia or something similar. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks like a good fit. -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't keep. How does a "melting face" emoji relate to the physical process of melting? Faces are not literally undergoing a change in state from solid to liquid. Seems like an inappropriate target to me. Delete or retarget. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The emoji is showing a representation of a face undergoing a change in state from solid to liquid as if it were an ice cube. I mean, there's a puddle around the partially-melted face... -- Tavix (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • And someone would be seeking the content at Melting by using this emoji? It's only mainspace links are from articles about Emojis. Based on the external links, it is being used figuratively, to suggest someone is hot, or some other feeling, not the literal physical process. In terms of actual processes, could possibly also mean Dissolution. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taking the examples of past Rfds linked at WP:REMOJI, we keep redirects from emojis for which there is an article about the specific thing depicted by the emoji, and otherwise we tend toward deletion. We do not have an article on Face melting or Melting face or similar (nor should we be expected to). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The emoji is a melting face emoji so Melting seems like a good target. If a better one is proposed, please ping me. Regardless of target, emoji redirects should never be deleted. Worst case, redirect to Emoji or to the specific block. Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow the reasoning for never be deleted. I've seen several editors assert this, but it's not clear to me why this should be the case. signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inherently foolish, if we start looking things up by emojiis I don't want to live on this planet any more. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too ambiguous to merit redirecting. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and Gonnym. I also think that Melting is a good target for this emoji, and contrary to what both editors above have stated, I don't see any problem with keeping this as long as it redirects to the current target. CycloneYoris talk! 23:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family buisiness

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

Joey's

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 1#Joey's

June 23

Coat of arms of Harrow

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn/Keep.

Anthonie Palamedesz.

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

El Fantasma (wrestler)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 30#El Fantasma (wrestler)

Astronomical event

As with the verdict for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial event, this phrase is too nebulous (snark) to be of any worth. Its current redirect target has a different, more precise meaning. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Alaska

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

Royal Match (Video game)

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

Falling through the cracks

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

Read the standing orders! Read them and understand them!

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

The Dove's Necklace

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

Ark Nova

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 30#Ark Nova

Bocce (Locality)

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

Conton

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

Edgelord

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

Aroostook County Jane Doe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 30#Aroostook County Jane Doe

Wikipedia:CONTEST

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

Singkong

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

Complex exponential

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

Wikipedia:CRITERIA

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

Quahog, Rhode Island

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

June 18

Walter Engelmann

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Walter Engelmann

Johannes Buder

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Johannes Buder

Vivicam3915

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

Rob Derbyshire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Rob Derbyshire

David's

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 26#David's

Usze 'Taham

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

N'tho 'Sraom

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

Autonomy for East Pakistan

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

🫤

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 1#🫤

🫥

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 1#🫥

R.O.S.E

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 26#R.O.S.E

Bear children

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Bear children

Samuel-034

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 28#Samuel-034

Private Jenkins

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 26#Private Jenkins

Macedonian Catholic Eparchy of the Blessed Virgin Mary Assumed in Strumica-Skopje

Very broken English translation of "Beata Maria Vergine Assunta in Strumica-Skopje" (source). It is very unlikely to help the reader. Therefore, it should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Potential close comment - This was the original title for 4 years and there are 14 incoming links, 3 of them are redirects themselves. I thought this was a quick delete, but it requires cleanup. Jay (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I cleaned the incoming links. Veverve (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was being piped from Eastern Catholic Churches which I have now fixed. Jay (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal Perez

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

Sergeant Banks

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

Friedrich Linde

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Friedrich Linde

Oshkosh International Folk Festival

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Oshkosh International Folk Festival

Sarah Halley Finn

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

New Jeans

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

Army of Holland (France)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 26#Army of Holland (France)

Royal Antigua and Barbuda Coast Guard

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

Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 26#Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force

Noble Consort Mei

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 26#Noble Consort Mei

Chongqingbei Railway Station Station

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

Balochki language

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

Fools' Day

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Fools' Day

n-C Hydrocarbon Redirects

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

Libyan Government

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget the first two, and keep the third

AN/PVS-8

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

Wikipedia:AFDAY

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

Micheal Corner

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

Thomas Fleetwood (1661–1717))

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

List of Home Along Da Riles guest stars

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

Anti-Colonialism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Anti-Colonialism

June 17

Purely transcendental extension

These should redirect to the same article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @TakuyaMurata: I assume there is no objection in turning transcendence degree article to transcendental extension.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GreatAgain

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

The Gryffindor Chasers

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

Conservative Resident

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be a formal term based on internet and Google Scholar searches, as results are just about residents who are conservative in various contexts. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The links suggest this was a local branding used by Conservative council candidates in Croydon in the era when you could use whatever variation you felt like, possibly with some eye to the various Residents' parties that used to be more prevalent though whether this was a local merger or just a more voter friendly branding I'm not sure. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there is quite a lot of history here. It seems to have largely been used in Croydon (where Residents candidates and Conservative Candidates where closely aligned). Quite a strong history of candidates elected as indpendents in 1964 and 1968 being re-elected as Conservatives in 1974 (Bensham Manor comes to mind). The candidates in Norbury stood as "Conservatives" in 1964 and "Conservative Residents" in 1968 - and were members of the Conservative Group on the Council for that whole time - other sources also count "Conservative Resident" candidates as Conservatives - like here from Rallings and Thrasher: http://www.electionscentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Croydon-1964-2010.pdf Trimfrim20 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe the discussion is incomplete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Tim and Trimfrim. It seems to be an actually attested name for certain groups of Tories. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Java Edition

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Java Edition

Triple threat (entertainer)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Triple threat (entertainer)

Sonic Chrono Adventure

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

Coastal waters

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

Internet Explorer 12

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 28#Internet Explorer 12

Boonwurrung (disambiguation)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy deleted by an admin

Dde highways

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

U.S. Route 78 in Georgia and South Carolina

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

June 15

Wikipedia:CRITERIA

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23#Wikipedia:CRITERIA

Aroostook County Jane Doe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23#Aroostook County Jane Doe

Create wikipage

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

Assembly of Guiana

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

חורבן אייראפע

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

Fat land parrot

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

2019 FIBA 3x3 Europe Cup

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 22#2019 FIBA 3x3 Europe Cup

Dansou

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

Dodge Avenger Concept

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

Shell Cottage

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

Tony Cornhole

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

Stress relieving

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

Ohrid mantle

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

ھنھدھ

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

Youssef Zidan

This is a weird case. This redirect refers to a fictional character, but points to the actor's article. List of NCIS characters and NCIS (season 4) do not mention the character, either. I'd rather redirect to the former, but I imagine some people would want it gone as the article doesn't mention the character by name. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Certainly not what Nayyar is known for, and, in the context of NCIS, a minor character who only appeared in one episode. GrindtXX (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are notability guidelines for redirects? Apokrif (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment n.b. the current target does mention the Youssef Zidan role, not sure I see the harm in keeping at the moment. signed, Rosguill talk 20:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ꑭ

Per WP:SSRT and per just ... why? It's a word in a different language, just like there are millions of words. Fram (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Due to the ongoing Siege of Mariupol (where fighters of the Azov Battalion have been surrounded by the Russian Armed Forces), ꑭ has become a recent Twitter trend, and there's no applicable Wikipedia article for it, so I thought it'd probably be of benefit to create a soft redirect to Wiktionary in case curious readers came looking for it. That's the full extent of my rationale, essentially. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For some extra info, see Ідея нації [uk] and Wolfsangel#Post World War II symbolism; people are using ꑭ to represent that symbol in text as it looks similar. It is for sure a plausible search term, though I don't know much about wiktionary redirects so I'll leave it to someone else to !vote on what the appropriate action is. Endwise (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)If you created this because people might be looking for Wolfsangel but mistakenly, somehow, use the Yi character instead, then why not change this Wiktionary redirect into a redirect to Wolfsangel? Your reasoning seem to be that people are looking for this, using this symbol as a search term (as it is a Twitter tag), and then you would deliberately send them to a Wiktionary page they have no interest in? That makes no sense or at least isn't reader-friendly. Fram (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, a redirect to Wolfsangel could potentially work as well. The Unicode Consortium doesn't consider ꑭ a wolfsangel, however; it fits within the Sichuan Yi Syllables codeblock at codepoint U+A46D. I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide where the redirect should go (or whether it should be redirected at all). I've considered amending wikt:ꑭ to add a short mention regarding the Azov usage, however ultimately opted not to because the rule of thumb provided at wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion is minimum of one year of attested usage, and ꑭ has not been used for more than a month in the Azov sense. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Yi_script#Modern_Yi as a character in that script, with a {{distinguish}} hatnote to Wolfsangel. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems to me that this is a Neologism, so WP:NEO is the appropriate guideline. Clearly there are hundreds of twitter posts with the hashtag, but only 12 hits in google news (and none in English), so a redirect somewhere content-related is clearly in order. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it seems likely that most people searching for this character on en.wiki are looking for Wolfsangel, but it appears that there hasn't been enough usage to meet wiktionary standards, so my conclusion is that we're not prepared to host a redirect of this character yet. signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try for a clearer consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Beast

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 22#Mr. Beast

The most remarkable formula in mathematics

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

June 14

Terry Pearce

Ambiguous redirect. Many other non-notable people with the same name exist and are mentioned at Hampstead Scientific Society#Hampstead Observatory, 2016 World Masters Athletics Championships Men#M60 2000 metres steeplechase, Australia at the 1992 Paralympic Games for Persons with Mental Handicap#Futsal, and 2015 Bracknell Forest Borough Council election.

A disambiguation page is not suitable; the search function will be more useful and maintainable if readers are looking for one of these individuals. BilledMammal (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Notcharizard, Schwede66, NealeWellington, Sammyrice, Wjemather, NZFC, NiklausGerard, Rugbyfan22, No Great Shaker, Ficaia, Alvaldi, StickyWicket, and Rhododendrites: Ping AFD participants, in line with this notification. BilledMammal (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the AfD said that there was "no clear consensus on a redirect", WP:COMMONSENSE would support the redirect over the other people with this name, none of whom have an article either. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain why the redirect should go here, rather to other people with this name? BilledMammal (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any change I think, partly because I don't really understand what's up for discussion here. The incoming links seem clean to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lugnuts and Blue Square Thing. Terry Pearce was a Test cricket umpire so the target page is entirely appropriate. We don't have any other articles about anyone with this name (or Terence Pearce) so, as Lugnuts says, the current solution is the common sense one. I fail to see how this can be an issue. Thanks for the ping, btw. NGS Shakin' All Over 10:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion, as there are several other "Terry Pearces" mentioned in different articles, and I don't think this particular Terry Pearce is any more notable than the others. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Subject was the main Terry Pearce article, there was a suitable list article to redirect to too save the article history per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't believe we can go from now having no article about the person to now not even having a redirect from them. There is other Terry Pearce out there but they didn't previously have an article and we should be saving the history of the previously created one.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this individual is not notable, why does previously having an article mean that they should have a redirect when it risks astonishing readers looking for the builder, the runner, or the politician? I also note that preserving this redirect will not preserve the history - that has already been deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no need for a disambiguation page between people without articles, but given this is ambiguous it should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous, or create disambiguation page. It is unsurprising that some members of the cricket project would want the redirect to go to a cricket article, but none of the people mentioned in WP articles are sufficiently notable for a standalone article and there is no evidence to suggest this umpire should be the primary topic and that readers would be looking for him above any of the others; indeed most readers may be surprised to find themselves looking at a list of umpires. Arguments about article history are invalid since the article was deleted at AFD, confirming the lack of notability of the umpire; and the incoming redirects are there due to the deleted article, so they have no relevance either. A redlink is preferred in these situations. wjematherplease leave a message... 06:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Don't see why not; a dab page between non-articles is okay. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I supported a redirect in the AfD, but if there are other lists that include non-notable individuals by the same name, that we've recently decided this Terry Pearce isn't notable isn't a good reason to declare this Terry Peace more notable than the others. No opinion on disambiguating -- other people have a better sense of the style rules around dabs than I do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22#Arthur Harley. Strong oppose keeping, as it makes no sense; there's no reason to make one non-notable target more prominent than other equally valid and equally non-notable ones. eviolite (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per eviolite. Also, aside from the two other non-notable individuals with this exact name, there's also two articles for people with homophonous names (Terry Peirce and Terry Pierce) who should go in the WP:DABSEEALSO section; seems to be too much for a hatnote at the current target, and is more helpful to readers than deletion given that the homophonous names won't show up in search results. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is equal support for Keep, Delete and Disambiguate. Creating a disambiguation draft will also help in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No clear primary target, and there is no need for disambiguation when there are no articles. As per nom, the search function is enough. Avilich (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or Keep; now two entries and likely misspellings, more useful than search results. There should at least be a redirect/hatnote/disambiguation entry for the cricket umpire (considered notable for most of the time Wikipedia has existed[16][17] and will be again on Wikipedia or whatever replaces it), but not for the election candidate, who has never been notable according to guidelines (redirects for candidates who are elected as councillors are usually deleted); I'm not sure about the coach, if there would typically be an article or redirect there. A865 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angzar

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the redirect has now been moved to Angzarr, but I don't see how this addresses my concern. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I moved Angzar to Angzarr which is the more common spelling. It is the shorthand for "right angle with downwards zigzag arrow" and I have noted that at the Miscellaneous Technical page. Best, Btyner (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, happy to withdraw the nomination in that case. signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: I'm a bit worried by this speedy closure, because Btyner shoe-horned it into the target page, which has no natural home for it. (Being unaware of this discussion, I reverted. If it is to stay, a proper home needs to be found for it.) ANGZARR is not the name of the glyph, it is a shorthand nick-name ("entity name" in Unicode.org terminology. Specifically, http://unicode.org/L2/L2003/03440-sc34-0433.pdf (p2) says Tens of thousands of graphic characters are used in publishing text, a large proportion of which have been defined in ISO/IEC 10646. Even where standard coded representations exist, however, there may be situations in which they cannot be keyboarded conveniently or accurately, or in which it is not possible to display the desired visual depiction of the characters.
To help overcome these barriers to the successful interchange of SGML and related documents, this part of ISO/IEC TR 9573 defines character entity sets for some widely used special graphic characters regularly used in the production of scientific and mathematical documents.
This is not to question Btyner's good faith or your logic in speedy closure, but rather that the assurance on which you based the closure was inadequate. If Btyner can integrate it properly (recognising that there are 100+ glyphs that will need to be given the same treatment and by which time I have to ask have we drifted into WP:NOTGUIDE territory), then I see no objection. But our timing shouldn't be driven by a word trending on Reddit.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, reopening the discussion. At this point, I'm satisfied by the confirmed assertion that people do refer to a symbol on this table as Angzarr and therefore might be looking to find its entry in the unicode block, so I'm neutral on the redirect itself. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the deletion of Angzar which appears to be a misspelling of Angzarr. As for the latter, an alternative redirect target could be List of XML and HTML character entity references. Best, Btyner (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a sensible redirect target for Angzarr. The entity is already listed there with the correctly spelled name, and it provides visitors with the broader context. The obvious solution, IMO. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Angzarr to List of XML and HTML character entity references per Btyner and John Maynard Friedman. Retarget Angzar also to List of XML and HTML character entity references and tag as {{R from misspelling}}. Jay (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black anther

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

Vandalism-only account

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

Grec ancien

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

Eeweman

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

Fat land parrot

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Fat land parrot

Hangkong Gongsi

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

Dumbest Member of Congress

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Dumbest Member of Congress

Small Laptop Computer

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

June 13

Nanzhou Passenger Station (metro)

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

Survival arms


Not mentioned at the target, usage on the internet, Google Scholar, and Google Books does not suggest that the term is equivalent to the current target. The most common results are false-positives such as ...survival. Arms... and medical literature where this is a term of art for clinical outcome patterns. Within the field of firearms, it still does not appear to unambiguously refer to a varmint rifle, with most results either being about companies named Survival Arms or descriptions of "aircrew survival arms" that are not limited to this sort of rifle. Survival weapon, meanwhile, again primarily seems to refer to "aircrew survival" contexts, and appears to refer to a wide range of light weaponry not limited to a varmint rifle ([18], [19]). In the absence of evidence that the search term refers to any target in particular, deletion seems appropriate, although many of these would be appropriate redirects to Aircraft survival weapon, a likely notable topic. signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the absence of a reliable source. I am unaware of any widespread use of these terms to refer to the type of rifles typical used for varmint shooting. Thewellman (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm also confirming nom's findings of "survival. arms" and the company "Survival Arms" hits. --Lenticel (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to M6 Aircrew Survival Weapon, or a similar article like Armalite AR-5. 53zodiac (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the investigation I detailed in the initial nomination, the M6 Aircrew Survival Weapon does not appear to be the only aircrew survival weapon, and my sense is that the topic is better served by a general article covering the category of weapon rather than redirecting to a specific model. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please don't remove tags from redirects or change their targets while discussion is ongoing: it makes it much more difficult for additional participants to join the discussion, and the current state of discussion does not suggest that you currently have a consensus for the change of targets you implemented. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to include Aircraft survival weapon
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a disambiguation article for Aircrew survival rifle, with the potential to expand in the future. Survival rifle, survival weapon and survival arm should redirect there. 53zodiac (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So much talk, but nothing is done. I'm going to redirect these entries to aircrew survival weapon rather than waste any more time waiting for opinions. 53zodiac (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate to wait for a discussion to be closed before taking action, otherwise the action may end up being a waste of time, not sure what you're complaining about here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, making changes midway only confuses the discussion. A non-admin close is fine but has to be from a non-involved editor. I have undone the changes. Jay (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm complaining about the pointlessness of having a discussion in the first place. Why can't somebody simply change the redirects to a more relevant article? 53zodiac (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bold changes are encouraged. The RfD is only for cases where we want the community's feedback and action. Jay (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregate state

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

HZM Line 1

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

Novgorod cross

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

Realistically

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

Hrvatska metropola

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

Mali Beč

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

Glavni grad Hrvatske

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

Curdled Milk

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

All of Creation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 20#All of Creation

Template:NYCS stations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 20#Template:NYCS stations

Palandri District

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

Unsecret

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 20#Unsecret

Natalie Mariduena

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 20#Natalie Mariduena

Tiquan Forbes

see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 10#Ti'Quan_Forbes Joeykai (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Forbes is no longer part of the White Sox, thus making the redirect useless. So, the redirect should be to his current team, which is the Arizona Diamondbacks, in a section could be written, or previous bio could be restored and revised. Cherrell410 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can make the section under the page Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players that is about Forbes, if needed. Cherrell410 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not. These pages are not meant for just every minor league player. Just notable ones and Forbes is in no way notable to be on there.-- Yankees10 01:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Special:Search/Ti'Quan Forbes. I'm being mildly facetious here, but that is arguably a better option than rolling a die to choose one of six targets, or leading readers to this uselessness. J947 † edits 22:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesborough in the 2010 general election

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

Mustard sauce

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


June 12

Faithfully flat

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

Miller Genuine Draft (beer)

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Move over Miller Genuine Draft

Settings in Battlestar Galatica

Various planets and/or settings in the Battlestar Galatica universe that are not mentioned in the target article. It seems they all were previously redirects towards the former article Twelve Colonies, but there was consensus to redirect it to Battlestar Galatica per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Colonies (2nd nomination). At this point, without mention in the target article, readers attempting to locate specific information about the subjects of these redirects will be left with virtually nothing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Sagittaron(planet)" incorrect disambiguation format -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget "Aerelon", "Virgon", "Tauron", "Sagittaron", "Gemenon" to Dirty Hands (Battlestar Galactica) where it is mentioned. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget "Picon" to Battlestar Galactica: The Plan where it is mentioned -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convert "Libran" to a disambiguation page, there are people by this name with articles. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been only one participant, and some entries have not been covered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost all. These are very minor settings, and the proposed targets for some of them don't give enough information to warrant redirects. There's a bit of an WP:XY issue as well: for Gemenon, why Dirty Heads and not Flesh and Bone (Battlestar Galactica), Number Six (Battlestar Galactica), Caprica, Leoben Conoy, or Kara Thrace? Libran is a different situation and I have drafted a name index below the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: trying to understand what is almost all. Is your vote same as LaundryPizza03 which is "Delete all except Libran"? Or did you want to delete only those redirects whose proposed targets don't give enough information? Of which you have mentioned only Gemenon, which isn't even part of the nomination. Jay (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, delete all except for Libran, which should be a name index. As for Gemenon, I was going off of 65.92's list and I have no idea where they got one from. -- Tavix (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per Rosguill (talk · contribs) as acceptable default, except for disambiguating Libran, but especially the one with the malformatted disambiguator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing you meant per Tavix? signed, Rosguill talk 06:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go... since consensus is still slightly unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most (except Libran, which should be a dab page). Most of these started off as very brief articles in 2006 before getting prompty redirected: there's no content to salvage there. The relevant conent in the proposed targets is slim, and there's no inherent reason why these elements of the fictional universe should redirect to the one episode that currently happens to mention them. If there are any readers looking for those topics, then they're probably better served by the search engine: it will throw up whatever pages will have relevant content at the time. – Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/pure junk

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

United States Senate special election in South Carolina, 1972

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

List of highest U.S. counties

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

😕

It seems clear to me that this emoji does not represent confusion but disconfort or being upset. Therefore, the redirect should either a) be retargetted to Comfort as it is the same place where Discomfort leads and also because "uncomfortable" and "discomfort" are in bold in the lede, b) be retargeted to the Wiktionary entry 'upset', or c) be deleted if no good redirect is found. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that "Confused face" is the official Unicode name for this. See [20]. Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who gave it this name, but this face does not look confused to me. Emojis (see the table at Emoji#Unicode blocks) seem to redirect to what they represent, not to the name given to them (WP:SURPRISE). Veverve (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just to make sure my comment has a clear !vote associated with it. I'll also repeat what I said in a few other emoji related RfDs - deletion should never be a valid option. Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Gonnym said, this is the confused face emoji, and will appear differently depending on a user's platform. Its current target is consistent with how we treat similar emojis.- Eureka Lott 15:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Confused face" is closest to Confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or Delete - I agree with the nomination - on many devices, this makes little sense without further context or explanation. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it's officially known as "confused face" so the current target appears suitable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/query. While WP:UCRN is about article titles and not about redirects, I think the spirit of that policy is relevant here. In other words, just as we don't choose article titles based on "official names" of things, we shouldn't redirect emojis based on their "official names" but rather (1) based on how they're actually used, and (2) what's most likely to be of use to the reader. The problem is, I have no idea how this is actually used or what readers who search for emojis on Wikipedia are looking for. @Veverve: when you say the emoji represents discomfort or upset rather than confusion, are you speaking about how the image appears to you or how you've seen it used by others? The latter would be a good case for retargeting, especially if examples can be found; the former not so much. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arms & Hearts: when you say the emoji represents discomfort or upset rather than confusion, are you speaking about how the image appears to you or how you've seen it used by others?: I would say yes to both. However, I found no Pew Research Center study on how this emoji was perceived, so the way I saw this emoji being used remains an anecdotal evidence.
    None of the RSs discussing it are of any help:
    • Dictionary.com states the emoji "expresses confusion but also a range of other emotions, including bafflement, displeasure, disappointment, mild sadness, and self-pity. All of that can be earnest … or it can be ironic, you decide."
    • The Reader's Digest states: "We were surprised to find out that this emoji is called 'confused face,' but on further reflection, it does have an aura of bewilderment."
    Veverve (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Veverve. The fact we're bound to rely on anecdotal evidence here makes me lean towards deleting, but I'll wait and see if anyone else can offer any clarity. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with @Arms & Hearts:, I am definitely sympathetic to the idea that it should perhaps reflect the most common meaning rather than just a redirect based on the name. However, if we don't have a single obvious meaning, perhaps a short disambig page would be practical? "😕 ("confused face") is an emoji which has multiple meanings, and may be used to refer to: confusion ; disappointment; sadness..."
This would let us cope with the moderately ambiguous ones which don't rise to the level of needing a full article like 😂, and it avoids giving a strange result for the readers who do think it means confusion. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - how this appears in different font schemes is irrelevant. Unicode defines characters so that they have a universal set meaning upon investigation. That definition is generally what we follow; WP:EMOJI. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the intended meaning. Do not disambiguate as such a page would be predicated entirely on original research. eviolite (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arguments for keeping boil down to "it's the official name", which I find unconvincing for reasons laid out above, and I don't see any significant harm in deleting. Deleting also seems much more closely aligned with WP:EMOJI, which says redirects from emojis are often kept if the character has a clear and definite meaning ... The outcome is usually deletion if the glyph is unclear. There's no alternative target that would be obviously preferable to the current target, and I agree with Eviolite that a disambiguation page wouldn't be appropriate (so keeping would be my second choice). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current redirect isn't very useful. Despite its official name, it doesn't look very much like a confused face in my browser. Moreover, by landing at Confusion, the reader isn't keyed in on the fact that it even has an official meaning -- the redirection feels like an OR choice by a random editor. Unfortunately, by deleting the redirect we fail to provide even that information. This case would be best served by some kind of list of emojis, or a soft redirect to wikt:😕. Daß Wölf 23:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the official name may be confusion, the expressions it is actually used for are much broader. signed, Rosguill talk 06:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary wikt:😕, where readers can identify the emoji's official name. CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see how this is useful. Segaton (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who does not know what this emoji is can input it into the search bar. Since it takes the searcher to a page on confusion, they will be informed that the emoji is related to confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 😕
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since several online websites state that 😕 represent a confused face. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Just because some people are confused about its correct meaning (lol) doesn't mean that this emoji is not specifically defined as a confused face. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • soft redirect to the wikitionary entry, as for many devices 😕 does not look like a confused face (https://emojipedia.org/confused-face/), and so readers learn about the official name per cycloneyoris. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい 13:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

Real vampires

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

Dendrobaena veneta

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

≬

Another pointless Wiktionary symbol redirect. The wiktionary target here is useless, consisting of a single word (the unicode character name) with no attempt at explaining what this symbol actually means or when it is used. This also fails the conditions for soft redirection laid out at WP:SSRT, this is neither a commonly wikified words or a page that has been repeatedly recreated. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. All single unicode characters should be blue links, and Neel.arunabh has expanded the target at Wiktionary so that it gives an explanation of the meaning and how it is used. The WP:SOFTSP guideline is not a set of requirements that every soft redirect must meet, but a guideline that lists the most common situations where one is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, it serves no purpose. Zaathras (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also think a WP:REDLINK-type deletion would be beneficial because I'm surprised that I can't find a good article for this to target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: What else, other than the definition that now exists at Wiktionary, is there to say about this character? Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept of between in mathematics. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, if there is enough to sustain an article (my research has failed to find anything that suggests there is) would be at a title like Between (mathematics) and contain nothing about this character other than a definition. Iff that article is written the by all means retarget it there, but until such time we do people a disservice by dropping people (sometimes after several clicks) into a search results page that will contain no relevant information other than, possibly, a link to the Wiktionary entry we could have taken them to directly and conveniently. Thryduulf (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Knock it off with the exaggeration. If you search this character, there is a box on the right side that says Results from sister projects with a link to the Wiktionary page. It's one click from the search page and it's one click via a soft redirect. There's no difference. Also, if your research fails to find anything worthwhile, then it's not going to be a plausible search term and would thus fail the criteria for soft redirects to Wiktionary. -- Tavix (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly every individual unicode character with a defined meaning is a plausible search term, this is widely established (otherwise we would routinely link them in the tables of unicode characters or routinely keep them here. Secondly, there is no exaggeration - search results are not guaranteed to contain links to Wiktionary, nor are they always immediately presented to a searcher (what they see depends what device they are using, how they are navigating and whether they can start new articles; for example someone following a redlink on desktop will be invited to search and/or create an article first and have to choose to look at search results), so even if someone does see the sister projects box, and does immediately recognise that it's the only useful thing they will see from the internal search results, then it's not always just a single click away. Thirdly, I didn't say that my research found anything worthwhile - the internal search engine found nothing relevant, external search engines found content suitable for Wiktionary but not for Wikipedia.
    Finally, not a single benefit of deletion over a soft redirect has been established - even if the Wiktionary article were always one click away after deletion (which it wouldn't be) then it would still offer no advantages over the soft redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Eviolite's revelations demonstrate a need for an article explaining these symbols, the differences between them, and how they are used. Wiktionary cannot do that justice. -- Tavix (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see what is accomplished by deleting this. WP:R#D10 doesn't apply here since nobody would create an article at the Unicode character, and the target does provide significant information on this character. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; seems to have an appropriate explanation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Should all single Unicode characters have an extant page where there is a single reasonable target? That is a good question which cannot be litigated here where through discussions on individual items. Perhaps a wider community discussion on the matter might be a good idea. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus here has long been that individual unicode characters (outside the private use area) are plausible search terms - every time the evidence of page views etc is presented it's clear that people do look up these characters on Wikipedia (and frankly why wouldn't they?). There is no disagreement that when there is a single reasonable target the characters should redirect to that. The disagreement here is over whether there is a reasonable target or not. The other type of disagreement about single characters are over (1) which of multiple reasonable targets is best; and (2) whether a red link/search results are better than (one or more) target(s) that are alright but not great. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not close prematurely. The example currently used in Wiktionary does not make any sense and is not attested anywhere; likely just a (misguided) attempt to apply the name "between" literally. See wikt:Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/May#≬. Right now, it seems that we are redirecting to a page that consists of nothing but the Unicode character name and unverifiable, likely factual errors; I'm not comfortable having the discussion end before a conclusion on what the symbol actually means (if it does mean anything standard). eviolite (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking the lead on this. Given the lack of response, I went ahead and reverted Neel.arunabh's additions. He has been banned from English Wikipedia for similar antics, so this comes at no surprise to me. -- Tavix (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For final reconsideration following changes to content at the redirect's wiktionary target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🐱‍🚀

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

The World’s 10 Worst Dictators (PARADE magazine)

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

Athletics at the 2022 Commonwealth Games – Women's 20 kilometres walk

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

Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity

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

Editing a protected page

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

No return

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

Ning'an Railway

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

Thriller (Michael Jackson album

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 16#Thriller (Michael Jackson album

Astronomical event

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 16#Astronomical event

Gilman Hot Springs, ca

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

Jewish community

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 16#Jewish community

TEN10

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 16#TEN10

June 5

Qoi fish

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Deleted

Left-wing fascism

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus. The votes are fairly evenly split with a slight leaning to delete, and I agree this is sort of a WP:POINTY redirect, but don't see that it's doing any harm, especially if it's a valid search term. No objection to changing the target. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossgates,seamer

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

Satyrus of Elis

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

Satyrus of Athens

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

File:Ghani (2021 film).jpg

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

Sonic Chrono Adventure

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 17#Sonic Chrono Adventure

Musical Genres/Hip

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

Atatürk's socialism

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

Angzar

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 14#Angzar

Immigrant racism

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

Faithfully flat

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 12#Faithfully flat

Cyanide gas

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

Social unit

This was merged to level of analysis, but over the years, any mention of the term 'social unit' was removed from the target. The merge discussion (see talk page of both mentioned articlsS) was not attended - only the proposer suggested it and then carried out the uncontroversial merge. My query is inconclusive on whether this topic deserves its own entry, and as for the merger, I think unit of analysis would be better. Anyway, I am not sure what do; the current redirect is pointless (again, the target doesn't mention it), but deleting it would result in a loss of a past article without an AfD. Redirecting to unit of analysis is not ideal as that article also doesn't mention this. The old article did have some reliably referenced content, and I am frankly tempted to suggest restoring this pre-merge version, which could be AfD if anyone so desires. In either case, this redirect is currently not sustainable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The term is simply so vague and general that I can't see making anything useful out of it. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:social unit. Searching on Google Scholar, I wasn't able to find any literature analyzing the usage of the term social unit, which means that the best we can do is redirect the reader to a dictionary definition. signed, Rosguill talk 06:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Rosguill (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore Special:Permalink/475960620 and send to AfD. That venue is better suited to decide whether this should be an article, interwiki redirect, redlink, or something else. This was only ever redirected as part of a merger, and if none of the merged content survives, then the solution ought to be to restore. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and likely to cause confusion. I don't object to restore/AfD but don't know if it's worth it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of institutions

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

L'Affaire Lafarge

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

June 4

San Jose

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

Ytterbium dodecaboride

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

Mustard sauce

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 13#Mustard sauce

Vivicam3915

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#Vivicam3915

1-Phenazinecarboxylic acid

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

Old Catholic Confederation

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

Peculiarities of the genocide of the Tutsis in regards to other genocides

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

Anna Mamalat

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

Gideon Richards

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

Calvis Harris

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

5o Cent

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

Middlesborough in the 2010 general election

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 13#Middlesborough in the 2010 general election

Parmotrema tinctorum

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

Polymer impregnation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#Polymer impregnation

Green state

Ambiguous term. I've seen "green state" to refer to states where the Green Party has control, states that are environmentally friendly, or states where cannabis is legal. Given the wide variety of uses I've seen for the term, this does not seem to be the ideal target. Either delete or cross-redirect to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Green state should become an article or be redirected to Green politics Loremaster (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it does appear to be ambiguous, and I also found an article using it in the political science sense that predates the 2004 article at the target [21]. signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's ambiguous there can be a disambiguation page. Until another use is added it can be a redirect. 86.141.247.208 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The Green party and cannabis contexts don't really lend themselves to dab entries, but are nevertheless possible as search terms; allowing for internal search results is thus preferable, IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is when there is nothing with the title. "Green state redirects here, for other uses see wikt:green state" is possible. There is nothing about cannabis in search results or in wikt:green state so is there something that can be added? 86.141.247.208 (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the current target to which The Green State redirects, and Eco-nationalism to which Green nationalism redirects (and which also covers green politics). Deletion to aid internal search results does not help as there are thousands of entries, all pointing to Bowling Green State University. Could not find a reference of the term in context of cannabis legalization on enwiki. Jay (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the late disambiguating proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikt:Green state, seems plausible. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - The idea of some area being "a green state" is a general one that can relate to multiple articles. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. If a term can refer to several concepts, and there's relevant content about them here on Wikipedia, then you don't send readers away to other sites or present them with largely irrelevant search results, what you do is disambiguate. I've drafted a dab below the redirect (though I'm not sure how a link to Green nationalism can fit there). – Uanfala (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attempted something there for Green nationalism. Feel free to modify or remove it. Jay (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Fienberg-Fisher Elementary School

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

Itali-Slavs

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

Balochki language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#Balochki language

Ooh, it's am

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

2022 Russian invasion

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

HM The King & HM The Queen

These terms are not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear why they target their current target. For reference, HM The King has also targeted Monarch and Monarchy during its history. For the two terms at search terms on third party web sites, "HM King" returns results for Henrietta King and "HM The King" returns results for a probably unnotable scotch/whiskey blend. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator rationale update: Delete all per WP:XY per my comments below. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Majesty, which explains this manner of address and the abbreviation. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice find. However, it seems Majesty only explains the "HM" part of the redirect and not the "King" part, meaning the redirects seems to be split between the Majesty and King subjects, potentially causing a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should HM The Queen and HM Queen be added to this discussion? They both target Queen regnant. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mx. Granger: Sounds like a plan to me, so I've added them. In regards to why I chose to add them, it's the same reason as my response to the "weak retarget" comment above: WP:XY issues between Majesty and Queen regnant. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Kings; Retarget the Queens to Queen because "Queen" is ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HM The King and HM The Queen (while retargeting the latter to Queen), because they are in fact titles that are used when referring to various European (and in some instances non-European) monarchs and their consorts. Delete both HM King and HM Queen as they are both grammatically incorrect. Keivan.fTalk 04:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget HM The King to Majesty. A search for this term is almost certainly looking for an explanation of the HM component. The "King" component is likely understood by all, but in any case is linked early in the proposed target. Delete HM King per Keivan.f. Likewise for the Queen redirects. SpinningSpark 22:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spinningspark: can you elaborate on what you meant by "likewise"? Do you want to go with Keivan.f for the Queen redirects? Jay (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant repeat everything I already said but with "Queen" substituted for "King". That is, retarget HM the Queen to Majesty and delete HM Queen. SpinningSpark 08:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try. There is no consensus on any of the 4 entries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Majesty; a reader who searches for any of these terms is presumably looking to find out what "HM" means in this context or learn about royal forms of address. If a reader wanted to read about kings or queens in general they would more likely search for "king" or "queen". The fact that some of the redirects may be grammatically incorrect is irrelevant; they're still plausible search terms. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Majesty. The HM abbreviation shows up in the lede, as do links to king and queen regnant. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monomaсh's Cap

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

Draft:Gay men flags

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

Thomas Robb (activist)

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

MOS:IBID

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

Ephiel tower

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#Ephiel tower

Stirrer (cooking)

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

Terry Pearce

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 14#Terry Pearce

Latin Portuguese

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

May 26

"beIN Sports Xtra"

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

MAGA

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

World's Most Wanted

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

English Clasico

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#English Clasico

Surf beach

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Surf beach

Kalimna

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

Ukrainian Genocide

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

One-Eyed Jack (murder victim)

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

DNA experiments

The current target of this redirect is rather surprising/astonishing since it's not about the actually subject of "DNA experiments", leads to a subject named "DNA experiment", or a list of experiments using DNA. I would have to believe there's a better target, but I'm not sure what. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination updated with text in italics. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: For reference, a search for the term "DNA experiment" (DNA experiment doesn't exist) returns several examples of experiments that utilize DNA. In regards to an actual retargeting option for this redirect, what seems to be the best option I found is List of experiments#Biology, but even that does't seem to be good enough since the section includes several experiments not directly related to DNA. Possibly deletion would be the better option here so the search results are not hidden by an existing redirect forwarding readers to a specific page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Information posted by redirect creator. (Collapsed for simpler discussion reading, and to clarify that this was all one comment.)
Reply
The DNA experiment in The Double Helix is the crucial experiment in a series of empirical investigations beginning with Gregor Mendel. As late as 1952 the fact that DNA is the genetic material was disputed. But a critical mass of results as noted below reframed the role of DNA. The DNA experiment redirects, in this case to Scientific method, as one more piece in a larger structure. Just as "Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks: but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house” (Henri Poincaré)", it is the insight from the Scientific method that gives experiment its significance. I paraphrase from the Scientific method (Question, Hypotheses, Prediction, Experiment, Analysis) article:
  • Question "Previous investigation of DNA had determined its chemical composition (the four nucleotides), the structure of each individual nucleotide, and other properties. DNA had been identified as the carrier of genetic information by the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment in 1944,[1][a] but the mechanism of how genetic information was stored in DNA was unclear."
  • Hypotheses "Linus Pauling, Francis Crick and James D. Watson hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure."
  • Prediction "If DNA had a helical structure, its X-ray diffraction pattern would be X-shaped.[2][3] This prediction was determined using the mathematics of the helix transform, which had been derived by Cochran, Crick, and Vand[4] (and independently by Stokes). This prediction was a mathematical construct, completely independent from the biological problem at hand."
  • Experiment Rosalind Franklin used pure DNA to perform X-ray diffraction to produce photo 51. The results showed an X-shape.
  • Analysis When Watson saw the detailed diffraction pattern, he immediately recognized it as a helix.[5][6][b] He and Crick then produced their model, using this information along with the previously known information about DNA's composition, especially Chargaff's rules of base pairing.[7]
The discovery became the starting point for many further studies involving the genetic material, such as the field of molecular genetics, and it was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962. Each step of the example is examined in more detail later in the article.
In other words, the experiment becomes more than data, but reveals the significance of a finding through analysis. It's the crux of the Scientific method. (In this case, it was James Watson who realized the importance of the finding — see Footnote 6: his jaw dropped,and his pulse began to race.)
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McCarty 1985, p. 252.
  2. ^ McElheny 2004, p. 43: June 1952 — Watson had succeeded in getting X-ray pictures of TMV showing a diffraction pattern consistent with the transform of a helix.
  3. ^ Judson 1979, pp. 137–138: "Watson did enough work on Tobacco mosaic virus to produce the diffraction pattern for a helix, per Crick's work on the transform of a helix."
  4. ^ Cochran W, Crick FHC and Vand V. (1952) "The Structure of Synthetic Polypeptides. I. The Transform of Atoms on a Helix", Acta Crystallogr., 5, 581–586.
  5. ^ McElheny 2004, p. 52: Friday, January 30, 1953. Tea time — Franklin confronts Watson and his paper – "Of course it [Pauling's pre-print] is wrong. DNA is not a helix." However, Watson then visits Wilkins' office, sees photo 51, and immediately recognizes the diffraction pattern of a helical structure. But additional questions remained, requiring additional iterations of their research. For example, the number of strands in the backbone of the helix (Crick suspected 2 strands, but cautioned Watson to examine that more critically), the location of the base pairs (inside the backbone or outside the backbone), etc. One key point was that they realized that the quickest way to reach a result was not to continue a mathematical analysis, but to build a physical model. Later that evening — Watson urges Wilkins to begin model-building immediately. But Wilkins agrees to do so only after Franklin's departure.
  6. ^ Watson 1968, p. 167: "The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race." Page 168 shows the X-shaped pattern of the B-form of DNA, clearly indicating crucial details of its helical structure to Watson and Crick.
  7. ^ McElheny 2004, pp. 57–59: Saturday, February 28, 1953 — Watson found the base-pairing mechanism which explained Chargaff's rules using his cardboard models.
Notes
  1. ^ The Nobel committee, in retrospect, expressed regret that Avery had not been awarded the Nobel Prize.
  2. ^ In the Scientific method, questions are raised, and settled. The questions have explanations which are settled by empirical evidence, such as experiment. DNA experiment is thus only part of the picture. Watson and Crick have found the secret of life.
Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Umm, not sure how that addresses any part of my concerns with the redirect, but okay, thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this redirect targeting where it does reminds me of a RFD I started a few years back for a redirect titled "Other liqueurs". (See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Other liqueurs.) The redirect targeted the section List of liqueurs#Other liqueurs, which was essentially just the name of a section header in List of liqueurs, but not about a subject called/named "Other liqueurs". I feel the same is the issue with this nominated redirect: It targets a section titled "DNA-experiments", but it's not actually about the topic of the redirect, but rather the term's use in respect to the subject of the article where the section is placed ... which is unhelpful if a reader is attempting to locate information about the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So the RFD idea/purpose is not about the significance of the term in a context, but about the term per se? Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Ancheta Wis: From my understanding over the years, that's the goal in most cases. (Editors' opinions may vary.) I added a bit to my nomination rationale that may goes a bit further into this reasoning; I fault myself for not being clearer with my rationale initially. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a short article which has a context section: Shot/reverse shot#Context Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought a redirect was supposed to aid in finding a topic. For example if Soldiers have an informal name for an Army topic, wouldn't it be helpful to create a redirect for the informal name? Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So if a redirect to a page such as DNA experiment (scientific method) would satisfy the requirement? I could then create an anchor to the appropriate place in Scientific method. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If any content were to be added anywhere to satisfy a basic helpful functionality for this redirect (with as little effort possible), it would probably be to add a subsection at List of experiments#Biology by separating the ones listed there which involve DNA, and possibly even add some more "DNA experiments" to that subsection that are not currently listed at List of experiments#Biology (if more are known). Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I saw some of the experiments from the DNA story in this list. DNA is the seed topic for whole industries now. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) ...And in regards to a page named "DNA experiment (scientific method)", that is disambiguation. One of the basic assumed requirements of a disambiguated title is that the version of it without disambiguation exists, and presently, DNA experiment doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus "List of experiments in biology" resembles a disambiguation page, but might actually describe the arc of a narrative? Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope the following answers your question: If a redirect named List of experiments in biology was created to target List of experiments#Biology, that would make sense since the redirect is targeting a location where the subject of the redirect is located. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So how does this redirect case RFD differ from DNA#History? What if DNA experiment were to become a disambiguation page to List of experiments on DNA; Scientific method; DNA#History ?--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how concerns about the redirect to a crucial experiment would cover up search results, but wouldn't a disambiguation page (sample above) handle this? Why can't I just start writing such a dab page? Is the rationale for this page meant to include other editors? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I ran the Nominator's search for DNA experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=DNA+experiment&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1 , and found a useful list which could be exploited (it's actually the first time I have found the Wikipedia Search to be usable): What I refer to is the type of Narrative paradigm called a crosscut, itself a disambiguator page. There is a sport on the Internet called the Wikipedia game, in which every article in the encyclopedia seems to have a root page: philosophy. This game has led to some users to actually edit encyclopedia articles, to keep the Narrative alive. In turn, other editors intervene, to break the chain to philosophy, in a battle between good and evil, an infinite game, or the conflict continuum#Competition continuum, or the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Genetic engineering. I can't make sense of the above discussion or the current state of the Scientific method article, but genetic engineering, to me, seems like the obvious topic someone who entered "DNA experiments" in the search box would be looking for. Tevildo (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed Retarget: Added genetic engineering, and additional links, to a new target, a section Experimentum crucis#DNA, experimentum crucis, as an application of the new understanding opened up in succeeding decades, after its discovery by the scientific method. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to add DNA experiment to this discussion. It was created during the course of this discussion and I would think it should have the same home as the plural form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants have yet to decide which target is best. Is it Genetic engineering or History of molecular biology?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget - I would also take this to 'history of molecular biology' given that scientific research on the practical side into DNA has preceded what we tend to think of as specific 'genetic eingeering'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. "DNA experiment" is simply too ambiguous to be a good redirect. It could refer to many different types of methodologies/techniques as well as numerous historically important results. Disambiguation doesn't make sense because "DNA experiment" isn't really a specific term that could refer to multiple specific things, instead it is a plausible search term, and we should let the search function do its job, as a disambiguation page could never be exhaustive. That said, since the discussion is trending toward retargeting somewhere, History of molecular biology seems like a superior target to Genetic engineering, as genetic engineering is much too specific (lots of scientific work, past and present, that could be described as a "DNA experiment" is outside the context of genetic engineering). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DNA experiment which was created as part of this discussion to aid as a disambiguation page, but which wound up as redirect to another target (a new unreferenced section). Delete DNA experiments as a term that can potentially target multiple targets. Both Genetic engineering and History of molecular biology are too broad. If retargeting, I would have preferred refining to Genetic engineering#Research. Jay (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mdewman6. Either of the proposed targets would be forcing this very general search term to a specific narrower term, which risks obscuring material relevant to a reader's query. Search results are rarely ideal, but in cases like these, it's better to be broad. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Ponds

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

Hölder conjugates

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

Functional analyst

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

Extreme porn

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Extreme porn

Extreme cold

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Extreme cold

Extreme heat

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Extreme heat

Betting odds

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

Tiquan Forbes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Tiquan Forbes

File:Navagraham title card.jpg

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

Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals

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

May 1

Spit kingdom

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

Bob Vylan

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

N.A.A.M. Brigade

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 9#N.A.A.M. Brigade

Sister Isle

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

Several redirects to Gold as an investment

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

Urban division

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

File:Kathputli (1971 film).jpg

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

Joe D. Foster

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 9#Joe D. Foster

Red Line (MNRR New Canaan Branch)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 9#Red Line (MNRR New Canaan Branch)

Blue Line (Staten Island Railway)

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

Chakwood

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

Chernihiv breadline massacre

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

2022 Chernihiv breadline massacre

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

164th Division (1st Formation)(People's Republic of China)

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move to 164th Division (1st formation) (People's Republic of China) without leaving a redirect

Mana (Anglo-Saxon)

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

La Nueva

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30#La Nueva

G.I. Jane II

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

Kav Kav

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

Stopid

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

Inbound marketing

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

Supreme Leader of Myanmar

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

Wikipedia:S

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

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

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

  • Convert to disambiguation page. A section of a subpage is too specialized for a one-letter shortcut. WP:S could mean a lot things and a cross-namespace redirect to Help:Searching is not the most natural. WP:S has a lot of incoming links but nearly all of them are from alphabetical lists of all one-letter WP shortcuts without saying where they go, so changing it doesn't break those uses. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a disambiguation page out of something that is essentially never used is just silly. Is the aim to make sure that such a high value shortcut remains unused?
    A section of of a subpage may sound "specialised", but this is part of the point. It is not "specialised" but centrally important to the most basic editor function on the project, writing content. This section, currently WP:RSPSS, is way out of balance in terms of how important it is to the prominence of its location. A single-character shortcut may be sufficient to fix that, and will certainly help. I considered suggesting WP:RSPSS be spun out to its own page, but decided against this, because, despite its standalone usefulness to content writing, its maintenance is extremely detailed and it should be boldly edited by newcomers without reading the extensive context present above.
    WP:S could mean a lot of things, but current doesn't. And what better meaning to give it than Sources for content? -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we pick a Sources target then it should be the same as WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCES, meaning Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. I'm fine with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked at that and gave it some thought. In terms of Policy, WP:SOURCES is the root of policy on sources, but it is extremely limited to policy-wonk-thought, and it is not very good, notably in how it fails to adequately cross reference WP:PSTS (Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). Limited to Policy theory that is not immediately practical. It is a partial blurb on the theory that undies the source rules. In contrast, WP:RSPSS is the end result list that edits should consult.
The shortcuts are not meant to be a content guide, but quick reference memorable shortcuts. Editors on the ground do not a quicker reference to the non-practical section of WP:V. They need it to get to the sources cheat sheet, WP:RSPSS.
Also, having multiple catchy shortcuts pointing to the same thing is another waste of catchy shortcuts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this redirect has targeted the current page (or a redirect towards it leftover from page moves) since 2007. At this point, due to targeting the current page for about 15 years, there's too much potential for links in edit summaries to be broken in the event the redirect is retargeted. If necessary to disambiguate "S", Wikipedia:S (disambiguation) could be created, but that may be overkill; it may be better to just add a hatnote for 1–2 other possibilities that "WP:S" could refer to, and call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I could not check ancient edit summaries, I did check many incoming links, and they are basically all junk. This shortcut was made without much thought, and never given any use. More than half seemed to be complete mistakes. If a future wikiarcheologist (like me) wants to discover what was going on with an odd talk page pipe, then it will be facilitated by the edit to the redirect including a link to this discussion. Archaeology doesn't mean "preserve everything", it is good enough to keep records.
    Putting a hatnote on pages that WP:S could point to, or has ever pointed to, is completely nutty if you note the pageviews. Nobody uses WP:S. Hatnotes make clutter in the prime real estate of the page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate per Prime Hunter -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Keep per Steel1943 and Do not disambiguate as that makes the shortcut useless for everybody. I've spot-checked a number of the incoming links and they either refer to the current target, WP:SOURCE (which is not the proposed target) or are part of a list. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Thryduulf. Agree, "Disambiguate" makes it useless for everybody, but "Keep" keeps it useless for everybody (a never used redundant option to the better H:S)
    I spot checked many incoming links, and many are mistakes, many are to an old ~2007 target, and all are unimportant. There basically never was any editing where people had a reason to write the wikilink WP:S as a shortcut to the help page for searching, it was silly then, and has been silly for many years. There are certainly far far more mistaken incoming links than intended proper uses (I found none).
    What is your desired outcome? That WP:S is forever junk? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - the existing incoming links suggest that the current target is not particularly useful. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (draft available below the redirect). I've checked about a dozen incoming links: a third of them seemed to intend WP:SOURCE, a few were for Help:Search and the rest were for either WP:Summary style or WP:Synthesis. Definitely no prospect for a suitable target here. As for the objection that dabifying will make the shortcut useless for everybody: whatever target is otherwise chosen, the majority of uses will be wrong, and that's worse than being simply useless. SmokeyJoe, for the list of perennial sources, won't it make more sense to instead usurp WP:LPS or WP:PSL, or use WP:S/P (for Sources/perennial)? – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Uanfala, the point about draftifing making it useless for everyone is that it keeps it useless, as in "unused". No one will benefit a disambiguation because no one uses it. Of the incoming links that you checked, did you note how old they were, and where they were coming from? From around 2007, and from fairly confused talk threads, which I think was mostly because WP:S was never a recommended shortcut for anything, and the only uses it got were from people being careless. I checked a lot more than a dozen.
    It is currently available with no modern baggage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are all the existing uses where the shortcuts is piped [22] and where it's used on its own [23]. – Uanfala (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources because I like the idea of syncing it up with WP:SOURCES. I agree with Rosguill that the current target is not particularly useful, but I also agree with Thryduulf that disambiguating at this title would make it useless for everybody because it would no longer function as a shortcut. I do like Steel1943's idea of creating Wikipedia:S (disambiguation) which would catch the incorrect linkages and those who guess wrong. -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tavix, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources already has WP:SOURCES, and that section is not particularly useful, unlike my proposed target, which is very useful, should be used by every newcomer, and lacks a good shortcut. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, don't retagret as that will mean links for searching in discussion pages will end up at the wrong place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give an example of such a link? Of the many I looked at, none were meaningful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - Projectspace shortcuts are ambiguous by their very nature. This long-standing single letter redirect should not be tampered with through retargeting or made to lose its function through disambiguating. This shortcut has pointed to content regarding searching since c. 2007. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Probably the most common search term. The others don't seem that common. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 23:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the drafted dab. Entries may be added or removed subsequently. Although I too find a shortcut dab "silly", doing this will address the unfairness of using a one-letter shortcut for something that has not been too useful. Oppose the usurping of the shortcut for perennial sources. It already has WP:RSP and WP:RSPS (and I would have liked WP:PERENNIAL to also point there). Regardless of whether the shortcut is new or from 2007, change is good, and if it's not too detrimental, we can make it more useful than it already is. Jay (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate using the draft. The vast majority of incoming links seem to be from an old welcome template that listed all the one-letter Wikipedia namespace pages, so no target was ever clarified in the first place. Quite honestly I'd also support doing these with most of the other one letter pages, as all except N, O, U, and V seem to be in the same boat as far as not being used much and having the possibility to refer to many things. For an example of one already being disambiguated, see WP:T. Pinguinn 🐧 14:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I think a closer would justified in closing as either disambiguate or no consensus now, and I find myself preferring to nudge the discussion in one of those directions. As a whole, I think the discussion shows broad (not universal, but when is it ever) skepticism towards pointing this to any one place. I am happy to support a disambiguation page that gives easy access to a few important pages. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus

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