"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Request for comment.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 1 4 1 32 38
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 4 4
RfD 0 0 0 3 3
AfD 0 0 0 10 10

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
STEP 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.
STEP 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.
STEP 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

August 17

CORPSE

I don't see an indication in the target article, nor at [1], that the subject's name is frequently stylized as "CORPSE". Even if it were, Corpse would be a more natural target. But since that is a common noun with no affinity to an all-caps rendering, I think better to delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Useless Gtag10 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ONEREPUBLIC

Delete. Useless redirect written in all caps. Band's name is not even stylized like this. CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 16

Soul2Sole FC

Not mentioned at the target, primary sources associated with Soul2Sole FC don't suggest an affiliation ([2]) to UPSL. signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shagos

Not mentioned in the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep - Seems to be a little-used acronym, but if anyone does search for this, this article is likely what they're looking for. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay Diversity icon green.svg 08:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep This appears to be the most plausible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Though not directly applicable since this is not a disambiguation page, WP:DABABBREV has sensible guidance: Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article includes the acronym or abbreviation ... If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article and then adding the entry to the disambiguation page. Abbreviations are sometimes formed from titles in non-obvious ways (e.g. dropping short words, taking more than one letter from a given word so that it sounds better, etc.), which is the whole reason that abbreviations, like any other content, need to be verified in reliable sources as opposed to just something made up in school one day. Meanwhile, this may interfere with searches for ShagOS (which is mentioned at partition type). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment (in response to the IP) It might be worth turning this redirect into a disambiguation page to point readers searching for either result in the right direction. (i.e can refer to an acronym for Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows or ShagOS, an operating system). JaventheAldericky (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unless the "ShagOS" subject has an article or is mentioned and identified in another article, its inclusion in a disambiguation page would wholly fail MOS:DAB. The only mention on Wikipedia I could find of "ShagOS" is in the article Partition type, but its mention is limited to only by name in four fields in a chart without saying anything else to identify or describe it, making Partition type unhelpful as either a target for a redirect (or a mention on a disambiguation page) named "ShagOS". Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Besides being a non-WP:RS verifiable acronym, third party search results for the term "Shagos" return results such as a restaurant and a band ... which have nothing to do with the target ... and virtually no results about the target. In other words, it could be quite reasonable to assume that anyone searching this term is not looking for the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Chagas: It seems to be a more likely misspelling of Chagas especially spelled as Shagos versus SHAGOS. TartarTorte 14:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering that Chagas is a disambiguation page, I don't see how that's likely at all. That would be telling our readers that if they are looking up "Shagos", they must actually be looking for Chagas. I'd think the search results provided if this redirect were deleted would be more helpful for our readers in possibly locating what they are attempting to find (and whether we have anything about it or not.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see the issue with retargeting to a disambiguation page. Alternative, we could have a hatnote on wherever this ends up, but it seems like a very plausible misspelling due to the pronunciation of Chagos. TartarTorte 19:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per confusion with ShagOS, but I would have no issues with SHAGOS being redirected to the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as an unused unverified acronym with incorrect capitalization. Although shagus redirects to Chagas disease, I don't think there is a good reason to follow suit. Jay 💬 14:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, my first assumption when seeing this term was that it's a phonetic misspelling of Sheigetz. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C(programming language)

Textbook WP:RDAB title/disambiguator spacing issue. No incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Camden Township, New Jersey

Camden is not a township and I cannot find much to say it ever was. It was incorporated as a city in 1828 and seems to have been unincorporated before then, but this is an implausible search term as Camden, NJ isn't referred to as a township. TartarTorte 20:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968, page 110:
Camden township*
1832 Mar. 1 17 Formed in Gloucester Co. from Newton twp., coextensive with Camden city. Page is in P. L. 1831. 56
1844 237 Set off to Camden Co. 56
1848 Feb. 25 97 Repealed. To Camden city.
Therefore, keep. --NE2 23:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monitored environmental assessment

Misleading redirect. This journal was never known by the name "Monitered Environmental Assessment" Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete Also misleading because the magazine does not deal with monitoring assessments. Paradoctor (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The title of this publication (a scientific journal) is "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment" [3]. So, it covers analysis of monitoring and assessment. In a manner of speaking the assessments are monitored because they keep track of their assessments, which are then most likely published. I don't agree it is misleading. It is simply a redirect page.---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, you can shoehorn an idiosyncratic interpretation into pretty much everything, if you really want to. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

This redirect is to a list page with hundreds of entries. All but one do not relate at all to the redirect title and there is no clue to find the single entry that agrees with the name of the redirect. Moreover, 1 wing is not a list. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The above was copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, where it was created improperly and gathering dust. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lambda sond

Although "Lambda" appears in the article, the phrase "Lambda sond" does not, nor is there any sense of what this might mean. BD2412 T 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Check engine light. This is another name for Oxygen sensor, although not stated there. It is mentioned in Check engine light, as well as a few Volvo articles. MB 04:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment "sond" and "sonde" mean probe in English; so this is a probe for investigating the lambda ratio -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFFL. The term "sond" is not used in English - the usual term is Lambda sensor, for which a redirect already exists. Tevildo (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That doesn't mean some people won't search on "Lamda sond", which actually has been written about in English. MB 00:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Retarget to Volvo 200 Series. It appears from MB's links that "Lambda Sond" (with a capital S) was a proprietary term used by Volvo for its automatic mixture control system when it was first introduced in 1976. This system included a lambda sensor, but the term referred to the whole system, not just the sensor. The term is used in the Volvo 200 series article. Tevildo (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are two suggested targets now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt for consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accelerated phase

Was PRODed by Rune66 with the reason being:

This is a general term that may apply to many other subject areas than cancer. Thus it shouldn't default to something specific. Also it doesn't really make sense to let it have it's own page

Since proposed deletion does not apply to redirects, procedurally relisting at RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment I agree with the nom that this may be too vague to be a good redirect, though most uses of the phrase in enwiki do refer to cancer. If kept, a better target would be Accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia. Also, there is an old stuff in the edit history that should be considered if we are considering deleting the redirect. Disambiguation is another possibility, but doesn't seem like it would make sense. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philalethia

Not mentioned at the target. While nominally overlapping a bit with philosophy, it's not synonymous with the term (Philalethia translates literally as "love of truth" in Greek), and I strongly doubt that anyone searching this term on English Wikipedia would be satisfied by the current target. Doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, which leads me to suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dchmelik: synonymous Is there a source for that? There was a similar claim on Wiktionary in 2009, but it failed verification. Paradoctor (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

겋

  • 겋 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
  • 겊 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
  • 겉 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
  • 겈 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
  • 겇 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
  • 겆 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
  • 겅 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
  • 겄 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
  • 것 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

These specific hangul syllables are targeted at Hangul (among with many, many others) but they are not mentioned at all in the article. They are mentioned at Hangul Syllables, but it's unclear if we want to retarget many, many syllables to there, or if they should be deleted. TartarTorte 17:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Hangul Syllables#Block. While that table is ungodly, these are mentioned there. Single-syllable words like these generally have several meanings, so it's best to just point these there. ✗plicit 14:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glagnar's Human Rinds

Minor plot element not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Foobar

No mention of Foobar (or FUBAR) at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: Google Foobar is a test for hiring developers at google; however it's not currently mentioned on the page and probably doesn't really need mentioning. It's (or was? I don't know if it's actually still around) a big deal to get an invite to Google Foobar, but none if it is notable enough for a mention on the google page really. TartarTorte 18:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Websafe

WP:PTM issues and possibly WP:XY: Between Websafe colors/Web-safe colors and Websafe fonts/Web-safe fonts, it is unclear which targets these should go to since the use of this phrase as a PTM is rather unclear. Also, note that wikt:websafe exists. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying to find consensus as it seems split right now
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 16:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prime Minister of Argentina

The Cabinet Chief is not a prime minister, as in Argentina's presidential democracy the role of head of government is still bestowed upon the president. Thus retarget to President of Argentina Jueo (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak retarget to President of Argentina. I'm not 100% on board with this solution, but the US example presents a compelling precedent. At any rate, keeping it at the current target would be misleading, but precedent seems to caution against outright deletion. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

The above was copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, where it was created improperly and gathering dust. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to minimal participation and it being a procedural nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 15:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colonization of Earth

There is nothing at the target section about humans colonizing the Earth. For that to even make sense, humans would have had to come from somewhere else. In the earlier section Origin of life and evolution, it says "life colonized Earth's surface", perhaps this could go there or to some other article. MB 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hanging Man

Ambiguous redirect. Title doesn't specifically refer to this tarot card. CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There's the dab page The Hanged Man. Given search results, I'm inclined to retarget to Hanging man (candlestick pattern) but I'm happy to listen out for other options here. I think we should keep in mind a couple of things: the disambiguation option and that Hanging man is a red link; it as it stands should be the title of the candlestick pattern page. J947 † edits 10:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree, and also thought about retargeting to the candlestick article. Though the search bar does yield multiple results, so disambiguating also seems like a viable option. CycloneYoris talk! 23:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move "hanging man (candlestick pattern)" to "hanging man", retarget "Hanging Man" to "hanging man", and then, to "hanging man", add a hatnote link to the disambiguation page "The Hanged Man" since it is very easy for someone to look for "hanging man" when one is actually wanting to look for one of the meanings of "hanged man". —Lowellian (reply) 19:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fuckfest

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: This is a valid synonym. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with MZMcBride— Tazuco ✉️ 19:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as a valid and fairly widespread synonym for the target. Redirects aren't articles, and they don't need to use tame language to be useful to readers. Glades12 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Glades12: But that is not my actual concern. The problem is that the term as such does not appear in the target (see WP:R#PLA). Hildeoc (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a problem, but I don't think deleting this redirect is a good solution. Maybe we can find a reliable source (not Urban Dictionary, of course) and add a list of slang terms at Group sex#Terms? Glades12 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move Fuckfest (album) to the base title and hatnote for wikt:fuckfest. There is no other encyclopedic topic by this name. This term has multiple meanings besides group sex, and is not suitable for disambiguation among the relevant articles for those meanings (adding large numbers of slang synonyms to those articles in an effort to meet WP:DABMENTION will not substantially increase any reader's encyclopedic understanding of those topics.) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)rReply[reply]
    or we could keep this target and add {{Redir|Fuckfest|3=Fuckfest (album)}} (displays ""Fuckfest" redirects here. For other uses, see Fuckfest (album).") to group sex. — Tazuco ✉️ 00:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not a suitable redirect to group sex in the first place, since the word can also mean multiple acts of sex with a single partner, or clusterfuck/imbroglio/disaster. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Soft redirect to its wiktionary entry at wikt:fuckfest, which is a much better target than the current one. CycloneYoris talk! 07:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move Fuckfest (album) to Fuckfest with {{Wiktionary}}. It's too vague to have 1 target explaining it, and there's album with that name. CLYDEFRANKLIN 16:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this obscure album should be the primary topic, as most readers will be searching for the term and not the album. Doesn't matter if its the only Wikipedia article we have at this title. CycloneYoris talk! 19:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survival thriller

Not mentioned in target article. If this must survive deletion, one must mention it with sources, preferably as a section. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not mentioned at survival film either, therefore delete per WP:XY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ja'rod

Turned into a redirect to List of Star Trek characters (G-M)#Ja'rod by User:Cbbkr in Octobe 2013. Not mentioned at the target article. Wikipedia does not contain any information about Ja'rod so the redirect is useless. JIP | Talk 18:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLPprod

Redirect from article namespace to project namespace. Could redirect to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. FAdesdae378 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fate/Extra Last Project

I'm assuming this is meant to refer to Fate/Extra Last Encore, which was first announced five days before this redirect was created. I'm not sure why we need this redirect still if the name has been known for a few years now. If it's kept, however, the best target I can think of would be the target's section about this anime adaptation. Regards, SONIC678 05:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ollywood TV

Not mentioned at target. Not sure what the connection may be. WP:ASTONISH MB 03:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crymea river

Misspelling of an ambiguous term, as pointed out by 61.239.39.90. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Crimea river and Category:Rivers of Crimea. CLYDEFRANKLIN 03:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian Taliban

Pejorative term not discussed at the target, could equally refer to other articles about far-right Christian groups/ideologies, even within the context of US politics. Previously deleted for the above reasons following an RfD discussion about a decade ago, having pointed to a similar target, so I think this is worth a new discussion rather than WP:G4.

signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete as per RFD Delete number 3. --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: I do not think that RFD D3 applies here as there are quite a few media outlets who have used the term "Christian Taliban" especially after Adam Kinzinger's use of it against Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene; however, I cannot seem to find an appropriate target for this. It seems to really either needs to be its own article exploring the term (so deletion per WP:REDYES) or delete because there is no place to target it. If kept (or retargeted), a {{R from non-neutral name}} could be thrown on it. TartarTorte 13:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looking at a quick Google Scholar search, "Christian Taliban" as an epithet in the US context might meet notability guidelines, although most usage I see on Google Scholar would be primary with respect to that topic. However, it's also apparently been used as a self-label by Ukrainian far-right group Right Sector, and there's also coverage of an attempt in the 2000s of establishing a genuine Christian faction of the Taliban in Peshawar. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Google confirms it is a term in common use. [4]. Greyhound 84 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those results fall afoul of the issue I noted in the nomination statement and echoed by TartarTorte, that while this term is used as an epithet for elements of the US religious right wing, there isn't a single clear article that appears appropriate as a target, as coverage of potentially-valid referents is spread across various articles. signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schoolboy humour

(Same applies to the Schoolyard humour redirect)

These redirect to Black comedy, which I don't think is accurate. Was previously a redirect to Off-color humor, which I also don't think fits. If any editors have thoughts for a better redirect, I'd like to know. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete No suitable target on Wikipedia, no Wiktionary entry. DuckDuckGo didn't come up with a definition either. Redirecting to humour as an {{r from hyponym}} would be pointless, as it is not even mentioned there, let alone defined. Paradoctor (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dark Olive

Not mentioned in target article, and not mentioned 'specifically in Olive (color). (This could reasonably target Olive (color)#Dark olive green I suppose, but readers may be looking this term up looking for a "dark" version of an olive, as explained in the next sentence.) In addition, I don't think this would be helpful being retargeted to Olive since readers will probably think of redirected there "What is a dark olive?" and not have their question answered. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dark olive drab

Not mentioned in target article, and not specifically mentioned in Olive (color). (There is Olive (color)#Olive drab, and there are some variants there including a variant that looks significantly darker that the initial version, but there isn't a color/shade specifically named "dark olive drab" there.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grooming conspiracy theory

As noted on the talk page for this - there are other non-LGBT grooming claims (some of which may be dismissed as conspiracy theories), especially outside the US. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Query: is there a suitable alternate target to redirect this to? Or are there articles on the other grooming conspiracy theories that we could turn grooming conspiracy theory into a disambiguation page? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Sideswipe9th: Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory about "grooming gangs" in India. Not sure about UK articles. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Love Jihad doesn't mention grooming or grooming gangs even once. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The only reason that Grooming conspiracy theory redirects to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory is because you boldly moved Grooming conspiracy theory to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory. I think this is a but much, I just don't see the logic behind the request... If there are other grooming conspiracy theories then wouldn't we make it a disambiguation page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was a bold move, but one I think had talk page consensus. As also mentioned on the talk page, in the UK in particular there are other far-right Islamophobic claims surrounding "grooming gangs", many of which are conspiratorial in nature. Plenty of these have their own Wikipedia pages, see: List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetrated_by_groups#United_Kingdom. But I think making this into a disambigation page would be too broad in scope, and subject to OR - best to delete the redirect entirely IMO as it is too vague. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was either bold or had consensus, it can't be both. You appear to have linked to actual cases of abuse, not any related conspiracy theories. Are you sure thats what you meant to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My understanding was that an edit which had narrow consensus could be considered bold by some, apologies if I don't understand Wikipedia terminology correctly. And yes it was intentional - as I explained, there are a lot of (mostly far-right, mostly Islamophobic) claims surrounding these cases that are conspiratorial in nature. This was raised by other editors on the main talk page for the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Claims which are conspiratorial in nature =/= conspiracy theory. I asked about other grooming conspiracy theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as a very recent {{r from move}} that lacks other potential targets. There's no ambiguity about this title on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. - Eureka Lott 15:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. There is an existing target, Love jihad, which is a conspiracy theory about Muslim "grooming gangs" in India targeting Hindus. In addition to India, there is a different type of conspiracy theory in the UK on Muslim grooming gangs [5]. Also [6] covers both India and the UK covering "grooming gangs" conspiracy theories. There are existing articles on real cases in the UK, of group grooming mostly by West Asian Muslim (Pakistani and others) men, Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, Rochdale child sex abuse ring, Huddersfield grooming gang, Newcastle sex abuse ring, Peterborough sex abuse case, Derby child sex abuse ring, Oxford child sex abuse ring, and Telford child sexual exploitation scandal are articles on real cases that are drivers of the conspiracy theory. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Love Jihad doesn't use "grooming" even once and the sole use of "groom" is in the context of bride and groom. That is not an existing target. Real cases are not conspiracy theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ideally this would be listified, but not sure there are sufficient sources for a list. Disambiguation could work... but would likely lead to various disputes about what should be considered a "conspiracy theory". If there are insufficient sources to create a list, I'd support deletion per Gilgul Kaful. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gray-asparagus

Not mentioned at target article, nor does the section exist in the target article. Note though that this redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diethard Reid(Code Geass)

WP:RDAB issue due to lack of space between title and disambiguator. The version with the proper spacing, Diethard Reid (Code Geass), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: It's an implausible typo, or at least that seems to be the general consensus around redirects without a space before the disambiguator. TartarTorte 12:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete this title with its WP:UNNATURAL error. I get it, it's existed since July 2008, but its history consists mostly of moving it and adding categories to the redirect. The correctly formatted title already exists, and the pageviews the incorrectly formatted one got since July 2015 average about one per 23 days. Not sure why we still need it. Regards, SONIC678 19:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Sonic678: FWIW, my guess is that the page views are coming from a link in the deletion log of New Article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 15

Episode guide & Episode list

Not mentioned in target article. In addition, I'm fairly certain when searching this term, the target is not what a reader is looking for; the subject of these redirects is not exclusive to being displayed on its target. Also, looks like at one point, these redirects previously targeted Category:Lists of television series episodes. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Episode ####" redirects to EastEnders lists or articles

All these titles seem vague, could refer to any long-running show, and most are not mentioned at their targets. (Also, all were seemingly created by the same editor back in 2018.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist since I just added Episode 5828 to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Vague redirects. These could refer to the episodes of any television show. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 05:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:EE

WP:EE currently redirects to WP:WikiProject EastEnders, an inactive WikiProject about a British Soap Opera. This is by and large not the dominant use of the term "EE" on Wikipedia; in particular I find that the acronym is used far more often to refer to Eastern Europe rather than to the British television show. As such, I propose that we retarget the redirect to either WP:WikiProject Eastern Europe or WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget our WikiProject isn't inactive but the redirect isn't crucial for our project as long as a hatnote is placed on the new target. – Meena • 19:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate there are a lot of links to this, including from noticeboard archives and user talk. The Eastern Europe project is also inactive, and there is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia (EE is the country code). Wikipedia:Editor engagement is a redirect to page on meta.wikimedia.org. Peter James (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flatiron Partners

flatiton co-founded by wilson & Jerry Colonna (financier) Enigmamsg 18:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or retarget to Jerry Colonna (financier). Might as well redirect it to one of the founders, and I"m not sure why it matters which. Ovinus (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

République dominicaine

While the French did annex the Dominican Republic for 14 years, it was not called République dominicaine. During that era, it was part of French "Saint-Domingue", and as there is very little french spoken in the modern Dominical Republic, this seems like WP:RLOTE to me. TartarTorte 16:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak keep. What the nominator states could very well be the case (I don't know anything about the history of the Dominican Republic), but if at one point the country had a strong affiliation with the French language, that means the French language has a connection to the target and these redirects are probably the closest English-to-French translation of its English name. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. There's a connection, and both French and English are mandatory school languages there, with Haïtian créole also being widely spread, being right next to Haïti. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

יעל נעים (Yael Naim)

It seems unlike someone would type this to get to the target. Just יעל נעים makes sense, but not with her name as a disambiguator. TartarTorte 16:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gravity Wars

The company released no game by this name, and the title does not occur in the target article. IceWelder [✉] 16:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It was redirected to Gravity Force until that article was redirected; Gravity Force now has a separate article again, and Gravity Force#Legacy mentions "similarly titled clones" which probably include Gravity Wars. Peter James (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The clones mentioned there do not include Gravity Wars. The game was also allegedly released in 1986, three years before Gravity Force. Gravity Wars relates to neither Kingsoft nor Gravity Force, so there is no plausible redirect target at this time. IceWelder [✉] 09:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giant white shark

I don't see any real useage of this term for "Megalodon" at all, and it seems like an implausible search term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't remember the context, but I redirected it from a name I saw used in some source or on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hatnote

Unneeded WP:XNR that could possibly redirect to somewhere else. FAdesdae378 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: just added links to previous discussions. - Eureka Lott 02:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget Hatnote (and maybe Hat note) to Listen to Wikipedia since the target's full name is "Hatnote: Listen to Wikipedia", so the title "Hatnote" could refer to the subject per WP:SUBTITLES. Delete the rest per Shhhnotsoloud. Steel1943 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget Hatnote and Hat note to Listen to Wikipedia; delete the rest. Per Steel1943. Veverve (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate at Hatnote. Cross-namespace navigation is not out of bounds for very salient wikitopics (e.g. Create article -> Help:Your first article) or for widely used wikijargon (see links to WP:DAB at DAB, or to WP:NPOV at NPOV). Hatnotes are sufficiently common to warrant such a pointer, and I'm not aware of the term being used for anything that's not related to wikipedia. With Hatnote: Listen To Wikipedia, we have an uncommon short title of an obscure topic that's still firmly inside the wikirealm, so I don't think this could be any more eligible as a target, despite being in article space. I see WP:HATNOTE as the primary topic for the term, but prefer disambiguating because 1) the context provided by a dab entry can reduce the possibility of confusion when sent straight to the project page, 2) the dab can more easily accommodate a "see also" pointer for Headnote, and 3) the project page already has a lot of hatnotes, so we have an incentive to reduce them. Hat note and Hatnotes should be retargeted to the dab, with HATLINK deleted as it's too obscure to cross the mainspace threshold. Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate at Hatnote; I endorse every element of Uanfala's comment. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose retargeting any of these to Listen to Wikipedia as that is unlikely to bring anyone to the information they are looking for. The status quo or other already proposed solutions (except deletion) are superior. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the rather late disambiguating proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Disambiguate per Uanfala, who I find convincing. Headnote seems the most likely target in mainspace, so I would list that first with the cross-namespace options below. Modest Genius talk 16:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. delete HATLINK per Uanfala. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dark pink

Not mentioned in target article. Due to the section redirect, it seems this term may have been mentioned in the target article at some point, but I'm not seeing where it was removed from the target article (assuming it was ever there.) Also, this redirect is an {{R with history}}; it was an article for a couple of months in 2005. Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to the section at orchid (color), although it is not the same content that was removed from shades of pink.[8][9] (and of the "bandana code" pages cited there, it looks like only one displayed the colour, and it was #FF60FF, not #E75480). Peter James (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debut album

I think what most people mean by "debut album" is an artist's first album, and not an album called Debut, which is what the current target takes you to. There are currently (until I fix them) at least three erroneous incoming links and I'm sure there were many more. Since Album doesn't mention "debut" I think the bestg thing here is to delete to prevent errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, I found this very confusing and WP:SURPRISING when I just searched for Debut album in the mobile app to see if Wp had an article on it (cf. Debut novel and found myself in long disambiguation page section only composed titles of specific works.
Llew Mawr (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep as an ambiguous term. Ideally this would be an article similar to Debut novel, but since we don't have an article, redirecting to where we do have relevant information will work. Note: to help alleviate the confusion, I just added a hatnote to Category:Debut albums at Debut#Music—please feel free to rephrase the hatnote if you have clearer wording. - Eureka Lott 15:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep better than nothing, and there is a link to the category. If we had an article with this title, it would be the primary topic, with a hatnote to the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep for now, given the hatnote to the category added at the dab. Ideally there would be a few sentences describing this at Album or Recording contract for this to target. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religious exemption (U.S.)

By far the most common locus of discussion for religious exemptions is in the field of vaccine law, which Burwell does not concern. Religious exemption - even in the United States (perhaps more so than anywhere) - is a far broader title than can be restricted to any one U.S. Supreme Court case. BD2412 T 03:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: Far too specific of a target for such a widespread topic. TartarTorte 12:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rural District of Iran

These redirects should point to the same article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Higher Education – Journal

Error in the act of disambiguation. The correct page is Higher Education (journal) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Scholar and academic libraries

Weird X and Y redirect. Unlikely search term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Functional Ecology – journal

Incorrect way to dab things. We have Functional Ecology (journal) already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Environmental Law (Law Review)

Error in the act of disambiguation. There's already Environmental Law (law review). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Gruyter Open (formerly Versita)

Unlikely search term. You'd search for either De Gruyter Open or Versita, not both together. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Denim (color)

Nominating these redirects procedurally since Denim (color) had an RFD in 2018 and a AFD in 2011 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denim (color)) that resulted in "delete". The target and/or embedded anchor these redirects target no longer exists; the subject is mentioned in the target article, but it does not seem to be the only plausible target. This color is also mentioned in a list at List of Crayola crayon colors#Standard colors (as mentioned in the previous RFD). In addition, Denim (color) is a {{R with history}} that hints it is a shade of a color and could be listed in one of those pages more accurately. Not sure an ultimate plan here, but it doesn't seem as though the current situation is really helpful for readers. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 14

Niggaracci

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an alias used in his capacity as a producer, eg: on The Big Squeeze. For all such credits, see here. I've added it to the list of aliases at the target page. - Forty.4 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Needs a source. Ibadibam (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debut issue

I'm not sure that the "first issue (of an American comic book) to feature a fictional character" is what most people mean by "debut issue": I would have thought it would be the first issue of a thing (comic book, periodical, newspaper...). This current redirect is therefore confusing and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. If there were an article for first issue of a publication, we could disambiguate "debut issue", but there's no such article. In the absence of any other plausible redirect target, better to redirect to the only meaning of "debut issue" that has an article than to have nothing at all. —Lowellian (reply) 13:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank

This longstanding (2005) redirect was recently retargeted by User:Tree Critter to wikt:thank and then again (after I reverted that retargeting during new page patrol) to B-cell activating factor, claiming that Gratitude doesn't actually mention the term. That may be, but it is nevertheless the common meaning and the page should still target there. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it shouldn't, as it fails WP:R#DELETE. If Gratitude can't add anymore to the understanding of the word then it shouldn't be leading there. Tree Critter (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Thank you: While a PTM it seems like, Thank you encompasses this the best. While I have no issue with THANK going to B-cell activating factor, it is a bit of a SURPRISE for Thank to do the same. TartarTorte 14:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Thanks, a disambiguation page, so readers can figure out whatever the heck they could possibly be trying to find that isn't a dictionary definition since I'd have no clue, and I think the previous comment validates this point. (However, since "Thanks" is not an exact title match, I'm also weak delete per my default stance I've had in the past with such situations, but this one just seems ... different. Also, very weak retarget to Wiktionary:thank since I'm fairly confident if they are searching this term on Wikipedia then the definition is not what they are looking for on an encyclopedia, though it is still plausible.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

בק"ש

This abbreviation has multiple meanings in Hebrew. The one it is seemingly going for is בקר שליטה ימית, however that seems to be just as commonly, if not more commonly abbreviated as בק’’שית as opposed to בק’’ש. Furthermore, with בקר שליטה ימית, or really nothing about Israeli FCSs mentioned at the target, this is approaching WP:RLOTE territory, so it seems this would be best deleted. TartarTorte 17:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

בְּיָ֣ד חֲ֭זָקָה וּבִזְר֣וֹעַ נְטוּיָ֑ה כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

This bible quote translates to "With a strong hand and a outstretched arm, because God's grace is forever." Also, this contains both cantillation and vowels, which makes it unlikely for someone to type in, unless one is copying from like mechon-mamre. It's a cheap redirect, just a pretty implausible one. ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה would be a much more plausible redirect as it contains just the words mentioned in the article and doesn't have cantillation. TartarTorte 17:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

L@@K

No mention at target. wikt:Appendix:English internet slang, where this was pointing at before, does not list this either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference, the (unsourced) definition I was relying on back when I created the redirect in 2006 was first added in the earliest revision of the page (whose history has been moved around a few times, but is currently (deleted) under the title "List of Internet slang phrases"), at 20:26, 3 September 2005. It was:

"Look", from eBay. Used by sellers who have nothing interesting to say about their item, but who try to attract attention anyway

Given that this has always been unsourced, I'm fine with deleting the redirect. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sekaimon

Not mentioned at target, nor elsewhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EachNet

Not mentioned at target; previously redirected after an AfD. Can probably be retargeted to List of acquisitions by eBay if unlinked there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: Under WP:REDYES and as unsuitable target. The AfD in which this was made into a redirect from 10 years ago was likely before there was nearly as much coverage of EachNet as there is now, but it's certainly notable enough at this point to have its own page. There's articles covering it in detail from pretty reliable sources such as SCMP, Forbes, and the New York Times. Furthermore, a redirect to eBay is itself problematic as according to the SCMP, eBay later divested. TartarTorte 16:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love eBay

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2887

Not mentioned in target article - If this is valid the so are all the other years? No reason to think someone searching for this is after the year rather than the number or another use, so non helpful KylieTastic (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KylieTastic Note that currently a lot of other years are in fact redirected to that article too, such as 2888, 2890–2900, and 2902–2999 (2901 being a dab). 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1234qwer1234qwer4 It came up at WP:NPP and made no sense to me and when I did a spot check 2880, 2881, 2882, 2883, 2884, 2885, 2886, 2887, 2888, 2889 most didn't and it just seems random, so I submitted to test the waters. Oddly 3rd_millennium#29th_century only has an entry for 2883 and that is one of the non-linked ones. However your correct that it's more than just this one and I would say the rule should be it its not listed it should not be redirected. KylieTastic (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also the Category:Redirects to a decade and Category:Redirects to a century, and Wikipedia:Timeline standards says that [a]rticles for the year 4000 BC and earlier should be redirected to the relevant millennium, so there might be an argument in extending this to future years as well (though we don't have Category:Redirects to a millennium). 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Hoover Dam explosion

This exists as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Hoover Dam explosion, which was closed as merge by Liz. However 20 minutes later Wehwalt redirected it without merging noting in the edit summary no useful. content to merge into target article. The target currently contains no information about relevant explosions (a temporary cofferdam was exploded in 1931 or 1932) and the only mentions of 2022 are in citations and categories.
Pinging the contributors to the AfD: @Fram, Concordiad, SPECIFICO, Balon Greyjoy, Storchy, DirkJandeGeer, Alexandermcnabb, BusterD, Partofthemachine, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Hughesdarren, Qwaiiplayer, SWinxy, and Gazamp:. Thryduulf (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, for the reasons expressed here. The merge quite possibly should have been a delete, but the matter was discussed, and a determination made through normal editing and discussion processes as to whether any content should be included. Since the editors of the article found no content worth including in the main article, an FA which covers ninety years of the dam, including its construction, there seems no point in having a redirect.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This whole sequence of events -- from explosion article to AfD to POV in the main article to its removal -- should never have been inflicted on the community and is a textbook example of WP:NOTNEWS nonsense wasting editor resources. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Wehwalt. Storchy (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: As there was no mergeable content, this redirect is pointing to nothing. I can't really fault the merger for finding no mergeable content as the article, by the point of merger, was "A fire happened. It was put out. No structures were damaged. No one got hurt." TartarTorte 16:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, according to media, a transformer caught fire and caused the explosion, affecting a small area. I don't see any encyclopedic significance in that story, much less reason to merge/redirect. Having said that, I can understand why, in retrospect, some editors were waiting to see if a story developed and chose to merge or redirect. I've heard that draftify is the tool of deletionists whereas redirects are the tool of inclusionists, but I don't believe either one is true. It is more of the same RECENTISM, NOTNEWS issues that crop up from time to time, and create time sinks & backlogs for NPP, admins and AfD. ONUS is on the article creator - delete it or send it back to them to finish. We don't need a million "suggestions" for articles to create. We get enough of that at VRT. Atsme 💬 📧 16:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete seems to be a non notable news event not needed in the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The decision to include no content about the explosion was decided at Talk:Hoover Dam#2022 explosion. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment First, this discussion doesn't seem to be about whether or not a redirect should exist but why a merger wasn't done. I'll admit, when I look at the AFD, merge was a minority opinion (I see 7 mentions of Merge, 11 for Delete, some of those people said "Delete or Merge"). My hope with a Merge conclusion was if there was any relevant content, it could be merged to the main article on the dam. There was a very brief discussion about this at Talk:Hoover Dam#2022 explosion. I'd hope there would be more participation but there wasn't. I don't have an opinion on whether or not this redirect is kept. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primal Instinct

This was formerly an article for the episode of the tv series before being BLARed by TTN as a result of a discussion that I could find (not that I looked very hard) in 2008. I have two issues with this redirect. The first is that this is a highly generic term (and right now primal instinct doesn't exist) so it is a surprising place to end up for searchers (I note many redirects to the same list article are possibly in the same boat). But even apart from that I'm not at all convinced this is the primary topic amongst the numerous non-notable proper nouns which use this name with capitals which can be found in a wikipedia or google search, such as on Simon's Cat, By Way of the Drum, Angerfist and List of programs broadcast by Investigation Discovery. So I'm not really sure what to do with this but I don't think the current status quo is suitable. A7V2 (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Disambiguate with the other uses mentioned. This redirect is the top search result in Wikipedia but the next five are not useful. Peter James (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dabify per nom's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Move the redirect edit history to Primal Instinct (Yu-Gi-Oh), to keep having an episode redirect around -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mango ice cream

This was a article about a flavor of Sorbetes that was merged into Sorbetes, hence the redirect left behind. Sorbetes is a type of ice cream (in the Philippines). Mango is a flavor; all kinds of ice cream can be made with mango flavor. The current target is misleading. I don't see an alternative, so delete. MB 03:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added Mango icecream which has a different target. Mango does say ""Mango is used to make ... ice cream", but I don't know how helpful or illuminating that is. (also Mango§Cusine is a dead section link, if this is kept it should be changed to Mango§Uses. MB 04:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, retargetting to the list is reasonable --Lenticel (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Paradoxically, redirecting to the list would strip the topic of its presumption of notability, making it ineligible for inclusion in that list, in turn invalidating the redirect under discussion and leading to its deletion. Ibadibam (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sedevacantist Antipope

Not all antipopes are part of Conclavism. The Conclavism article even states: "Conclavism is different from what George Chryssides calls the "Mysticalists" phenomenon, i.e. people declaring themselves popes after receiving a personal mystical revelation. This is because in the Mysticalists' cases no human institution is used to have a pope appointed; an example of those cases is the Apostles of Infinite Love." Other examples of non-Conclavist sedevacantist antipopes are Clemente Domínguez y Gómez, fr:Michel Collin, Chester Olszewski, or Christophe XVIII.
There are no good retarget. Therefore, I believe those redirects should be all deleted. Veverve (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This is a reasonable search term. Sedevacantists who elect an antipope formally are engaging in conclavism, so it might make sense for someone to casually search for this topic that way. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annual Reviews(publisher)

Typo in disambiguation Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

African Philosophy (1533–1067)

Unlikely search term. Journal name plus ndashed (and therefore invalid) ISSN is nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: It seems that a user moved this to have an endash in per WP:MOSDATE in 2009; however, these aren't years so WP:MOSDATE does not apply. Delete per nom as an ISSN with an endash is an invalid ISSN. TartarTorte 14:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A a. s. 215 meeting

Unlikely typo/search term. Mixing both errors in miscapitalization and in dots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jail (upcomig film)

1) This movie has already been released (this redirect was left over from a page move), and 2) the word "upcoming" is misspelled (that's also a leftover from 3½ years earlier when the page had another move before that). See also the "Nightmare Alley (upcominh film)" discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

J. R. Get Money

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, delete unless it's DUE to include at the target signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 02:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 13

Sid Salter

Not mentioned in target anymore MB 23:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - The three redirects to Supertalk Mississippi from a non notable radio station manager's name; ex presenter's name and the name of an ex show go back to a web of redirects and user pages masquerading as article pages created by sockpuppetry in about 2010 in the User:Arpierson1993 case. The names at the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arpierson1993 there and those user pages are particularly interesting. None of the three terms redirected currently are mentioned on the target page (nor is there any material likelihood any reasonable person would consider the material on the page might relate to them) and it doesn't seem very likely to me they should be in the future. When they appeared before it was only as entries in long lists of non notable radio station employees; non notable former employees, and non notable defunct shows that formerly filled the page with trivia, spam station promotion and vanity listing of employees names. It is not remotely likely any wikipedia user would want to search for Supertalk Mississippi using the terms in these redirects. Sid Salter seems to be a PR professional working for Mississippi State University where any redirect for him should have gone if he was mentioned on that page but he doesn't seem to be anyway. The redirects being considered are not referenced by any material article page links nor does there seem any reasonable chance of losing useful links to old page material by deleting them. I created much of the content currently at Supertalk Mississippi but have no COI to declare. Indeed I have never set foot in Mississippi or the United States. I listened to the station whilst editing its Wikipedia page and found it interesting. <aside>It does seem to me there is a weak parallel between the legal case reported at Supertalk Mississippi#College athletes' image rights where Supertalk was accused of pinching college athlete's image rights for its own commercial benefit and this situation where the firm's PR team built a web of redirects and bogus article pages using the names of staff and ex staff as a link farm to promote its own wikipedia page.</aside> I am grateful to User:MB for placing these pages in the list to be considered for deletion.Ed1964 (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob Sullender

Not mentioned in target anymore. MB 23:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - The three redirects to Supertalk Mississippi from a non notable radio station manager's name; ex presenter's name and the name of an ex show go back to a web of redirects and user pages masquerading as article pages created by sockpuppetry in about 2010 in the User:Arpierson1993 case. The names at the category Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arpierson1993 there and those user pages are particularly interesting. None of the three terms redirected currently are mentioned on the target page (nor is there any material likelihood any reasonable person would consider the material on the page might relate to them) and it doesn't seem very likely to me they should be in the future. When they appeared before it was only as entries in long lists of non notable radio station employees; non notable former employees, and non notable defunct shows that formerly filled the page with trivia, spam station promotion and vanity listing of employees names. It is not remotely likely any wikipedia user would want to search for Supertalk Mississippi using the terms in these redirects. Sid Salter seems to be a PR professional working for Mississippi State University where any redirect for him should have gone if he was mentioned on that page but he doesn't seem to be anyway. The redirects being considered are not referenced by any material article page links nor does there seem any reasonable chance of losing useful links to old page material by deleting them. I created much of the content currently at Supertalk Mississippi but have no COI to declare. Indeed I have never set foot in Mississippi or the United States. I listened to the station whilst editing its Wikipedia page and found it interesting. <aside>It does seem to me there is a weak parallel between the legal case reported at Supertalk Mississippi#College athletes' image rights where Supertalk was accused of pinching college athlete's image rights for its own commercial benefit and this situation where the firm's PR team built a web of redirects and bogus article pages using the names of staff and ex staff as a link farm to promote its own wikipedia page.</aside> I am grateful to User:MB for placing these pages in the list to be considered for deletion.Ed1964 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:DENIALS

Recently created redirect, that points to a single sentence of WP:PUBLICFIGURE out of context. Seems to have been created as part of an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. Wikipedia doesn’t currently have a dedicated policy on denials, just a one-sentence statement at WP:BLP that already includes an anchor for easy linking. And this redirect makes the linking even easier, nothing wrong with that AFAIK. I say keep regardless of whether this redirect is used at Wikipedia talk:Mandy Rice-Davies applies or not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: Anythingyouwant was the creator of this redirect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yup, I did, thanks for mentioning. And User: Sideswipe9th is among those who have deleted use of this redirect. I did not, however, create the anchor used by this redirect, and the anchor seems just as legitimate as the redirect. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2022(UTC)
  • Don't care/no opinion, however.... FWIW, the anchor was created here [10] by user:Herostratus in June 2021, with edit summary add in-section anchor for link from WP:MANDY, an essay which refutes this. Of course, that essay has undergone extensive recent revision but FWIW, that's the origins of the anchor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete This just appears to be one in a series of attempts to game policies, article content, and essays that our creator doesn't like. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Making Wikipedia policy easier to access is not gamesmanship in the least. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - let's not decontextualize policy in order to WIN disputes. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to #Public figures - people are using it, and the fact that it was created or used during a dispute is not a reason to delete the redirect. That said, it's far more useful to read the whole subsection than just the isolated final sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note that the whole subsection already has at least three redirects to it: WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:WELLKNOWN, and WP:BLPPUBLIC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It can have more! I don't think DENIALS needs to be a displayed shortcut. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So readers can slog through seven sentences before they see anything about denials? Anyway, AFAIK, no one is suggesting that DENIALS should be a displayed shortcut, it can be an available redirect without being displayed as such at WP:BLP. It seems silly to have an anchor and then force people to type a long tedious name to access it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: No, we shouldn't have an unmarked redirect to a single sentence made by someone in a fit of pique. Is that really even a question? Loki (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You guys are too much. I’ll give you credit for cohesiveness. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. It is a useful redirect to a relevant part of a major policy (BLP). The history of a mere redirect is not relevant, and it's no more decontextualized than numerous other "WP:" links to pieces of policy. That proponents of the WP:MANDY essay seemingly disagree with this rule is also not relevant. Crossroads -talk- 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates

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

TikTok war

The creator of this redirect cited this New Yorker article, but I'm not sure that's enough. The destination doesn't mention TikTok, so someone searching for it might be served just as well by TikTok, and it's also likely to age poorly, as future wars will also be fought on TikTok assuming the platform survives. Lastly, my read of the media coverage is that "first TikTok war" is being used more as a descriptor (e.g. "it's the first war fought on TikTok") than as a proper name (e.g. "I fought in the First TikTok War"), and as such I don't think it makes as much sense as a redirect. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big words

Not synonymous. Delete unless a better target can be identified. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Retarget to Longest words. I think it could be deleted, but Long words currently redirects to Longest words, so you could argue Big words could follow the same format. I'd personally be happy either way. – DirkJandeGeer щи 21:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He can't keep getting away with this

Generic phrase. Linked to Sam Hyde per this KnowYourMeme submission of dubious reliability, but even if taken as fully reliable, it appears to have originated on Breaking Bad and only sometimes is invoked with reference to Hyde. Deletion seems more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My god, what have I done?

It's a line in the song, but it's also a generic phrase. Deletion seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Countless songs [11] and other creative works [12] contain this phrase. WP:NOTQUOTE precludes making a set index or disambiguation page listing those works. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as vague. --Lenticel (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2b2t user names

Created with the edit summary Fairly notable player on this server, but they are not mentioned in any capacity at the target. Delete unless a WP:DUE mention can be added at the target (a brief internet search is not encouraging). signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. I think it's good practice to not mention users in server articles like 2b2t. Only an image credit from Windows Central but more mention by PC Gamer. Still, since they aren't mentioned in the article (and shouldn't), the redirects should be deleted (Leijurv has been notified on his talk by nominator). SWinxy (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's worth noting that I decided against nominating 3 other username redirects that are mentioned: Hausmaster and James Rustles rather prominently, FitMC probably should be nominated on WP:R#DELETE #10 grounds. signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (thanks rosguill for the mention) Wow, I didn't even know I had an article, that's super cool!! (even though it's a redirect, and even though said redirect is nominated for deletion lol). Anyway, I'm not mentioned in the article, but a few of the cited sources mention "Leijurv". A WP:DUE mention could, theoretically, be added. I'm mentioned five times in this one, and this one credits me for the heatmap. I didn't add myself to the article because that's self-serving COI, so I left it up to others, and I still do. Up to y'all! Leijurv (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ground Zero (record label)

Ground Zero is mentioned once in the target article, in the infobox, which doesn't strike me as sufficient for the redirect to be useful. It's hard to find mentions of the record label using the search, but a cursory look didn't show up any plausible alternative targets. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. Pissed the Fuck Off

Not mentioned in the target or any other article, which is unsurprising as Google shows me a total of three results for this phrase, which seems to be a made-up nickname for this album. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: made-up nonsense --FMSky (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transformers Untitled

There is an "untitled" future project listed at the target page, but the use of the phrase like this is both unlikely and could assume there is a project by this specific name. (The redirect was an article for a day in 2012, and the content looks as though it refers to Transformers: Age of Extinction.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete – another unnecessary redirect for a no-longer untitled film, not to mention that this is not the correct formatting for untitled films. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gasper

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

Porn scanner

These phrases do seem to have been in use to refer to the TSA's backscatter X-rays in the early 2010s, but none of them appear in the article and all are potentially ambiguous, so the redirects are likely to cause more confusion than clarity. My inquiry at the target talk page didn't reveal any enthusiasm for adding mentions that would make the redirects useful to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this mention (rather than use) of "porno scanner" in Revista de Derecho UNED of any help? --Kizor 20:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kizor: Looks like a good source to me – from the Google translation it seems to tick the box of mentioning the use of the term rather than merely using it. I wouldn't be comfortable paraphrasing from a machine translation but if your Spanish is better than mine and you'd like to add a mention I'd be happy to remove that redirect from the list. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polefield

Polefield appears to be an area in or near Prestwich, but isn't mentioned in the target, or in any other article in sufficient depth to be worth retargeting. My inquiry at the target talk page didn't reveal any interest in adding a mention to make this redirect useful to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polefield is a well-attested historical place - see https://prestwich.org.uk/history/places/polefield.html. Polefield House didn't survive the 20th century, and I suppose it is all built over now. Has become a street name. Simple removal of the redirect is not the best solution here. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Charles Matthews: If a sourced mention can be added to the target I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination. In cases like these I make a point of beginning a talk page discussion before going to RfD in the hopes of arriving at that outcome. But having a redirect that fails to take readers to any relevant information is, in my view, worse than having no redirect at all. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My attitude is that typing here is less constructive than typing on the target page. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's unfortunate because this is where redirects are supposed to be discussed. But to Arms & Hearts' point, I agree: If the content is added to the target page, this redirect could/should continue to exist, but if not, it should be deleted. (So, to make my "vote" official: delete unless a mention is added to the target page.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, anchor redirect. I have added a sentence to Prestwich#History about Polefield, using the existing VCH reference. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intergenerational ethics

Intergenerational equity and intergenerational ethics are two quite distinct areas of study – the former is something studied mostly in economics and the latter mostly in moral philosophy – and the latter isn't discussed in the article on the former, or in any other article in sufficient depth to be worth retargeting. As such, WP:RDEL #10 applies and we're better off deleting this to encourage creation of an article on this topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schooner Virjen de Covadonga

Useless misspell. Spanish speakers would laugh at any native that made this error. Super Ψ Dro 11:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep I think a J for a G is a plausible misspell. Good thing this is not the Spanish Wikipedia, over here we don't have to deal with this rude hypothetical Spanish speaker. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 14:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Microsoft Office 2002

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

2022 Hoover Dam exposion

implausible search term. 2022 Hoover Dam explosion already exists as a redirect. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A.M.U. PUBLIC SR. SEC. SCHOOL

Implausible search term. The school isn't even mentioned in the target article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete as having nowhere to go. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:GAMESOURCES

Since we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, I think this should become a disambig. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Butter (alchemy)

I see no articles listed on the target disambiguation page that relate to the use of butter in alchemy (or things in alchemy called butter), nor is there a section with the header, "Alchemy". BD2412 T 04:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Restore DAB page which was later merged into Butter (disambiguation). I haven't researched when/why they were removed. Also note the old RFD that says this should be kept due to the page history, and that Butter of antimony and Butter of arsenic are mentioned in the respective articles, and Butter of antimony & Butter of arsenic are also redirects, so I think it is a valid/useful dab. MB 04:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's nothing in the page history preventing deletion. This used to be a dab page with two entries (no descriptions) [14] and before then a stub article consisting of a total of two sentences [15]. Neither is required for attribution: the content isn't found anywhere else on Wikipedia, and besides, that dab page was below the threshold of originality, while the article text, as indicated at the end, was copied from a public domain work. Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think there's anything to disambiguate here (either in a separate page or within the main dab). There are several terms of this form [16] (not just the two above); but it's "Butter of X", and it doesn't appear that any of them would have been referred to as just "butter", so they're classic WP:PTMs. Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing generic about compounds in alchemy called butter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French world

I do not think it the redirect describes its current target. This redirect formerly targeted Francophonie prior to it being retargeted to its current target by a bot after Francophonie was blanked-and-redirected towards Organisation internationale de la Francophonie back in 2020 after a brief edit war of sorts. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or disamb - French world is a strange way to describe it.Gusfriend (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: most of the Francophonie is not France. There is no good retarget. As a second choice, DABify as per 64.229.88.43. Veverve (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. This is a plausible search term for someone looking for the parts of the world that have/have had French linguistic and/or cultural heritage (c.f. Francosphere). The lead of the article says it "is an international organization representing countries and regions where French is a lingua franca or customary language, where a significant proportion of the population are francophones (French speakers), or where there is a notable affiliation with French culture." - i.e. exactly what someone will be looking for. There is also a hatnote to Geographical distribution of French speakers. Disambiguating per the IP is my second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate - If kept, I think it should be as an "R to avoid double redirect" to Francosphere. But it would be fine also to disambiguate it per the IP and I think Francosphere could target this DAB page as well. A7V2 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-veg joke

"veg" content (only relevant to India) has been removed from the article QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep The edit where the section was removed was justified as "only relevant to India", which is not a valid rationale to remove content from an article with no region-specific subtopic. In short, the content should not have ben straight-up deleted without discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep "Veg" content has already been restored. Also, what the heck is "only relevant to India"? Go to Conservapedia if referenced non-white content offends you. --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: The redirect is relevant even if limited to a certain geographic location. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 12

Johnny Ware

I'm not entirely sure about this, but this seems it could refer to any article in John Ware (disambiguation). Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:CHG

I really, really can't think of a way to abbreviate exactly what phrase this redirect is. Q𝟤𝟪 07:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment this was created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Changelog, which was intended as a list of major changes to Wikipedia policy, process and guideline pages. A good idea that never got off the ground - it had only two entries from December 2005 when it was userfied to User:Radiant!/Changelog and the title redirected to What Wikipedia is not following a 2019 MfD. The shortcut was changed at the same time to avoid a double redirect, the edit summary citing WP:CHANGELOG and WP:NOTCHANGELOG (which have pointed to WP:NOT since 2012 and 2011 respectively). Getting off topic, but the idea of a changelog has recently been resurrected as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete and free the name for future use by the revival, if needed. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Change since "CHG" is a plausible abbreviation for "change". NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Change is already pretty short. This will be less clear than just typing the name, so the value added might be negative. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A three-letter shortcut to a six-letter title could be useful, but WP:Change is only a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete It is not an intuitive abbreviation. "CLOG" or "CHLOG" would be better for the Change Log, so no on retargeting. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. No good reason for deletion. It's fine for shortcuts to just not get used much. It happens. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't see the point in the 2019 changes. WP:NOT says nothing about changelogs, but while I guess you can imply WP:NOTCHANGELOG, it seems silly to me to also usurp other pages for that purpose. In the interest of not burying history, I'd say move User:Radiant!/Changelog back to Wikipedia:Changelog and retarget WP:CHG and WP:CHANGELOG there. That way there can be some kind of foundation in case the new changelog Thryduulf is hinting at ever comes to fruition. This also clearly illustrates for anyone looking for a Wikipedia changelog that one did get started but it's just historical, so they need not keep looking. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for consideration of the late proposal from Tavix
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, unclear meaning. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(per Louis Waweru). ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move the other page and retarget this there per Tavix, and do not delete, as there is no good reason for deletion as Tamzin states above. CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rectify per Tavix. Projectspace shortcuts are ambiguous by nature. If something better exists or comes along to place at Wikipedia:Changelog, then I am open to those ideas as well. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Only one link to it, which was intended for its current target; no reason to delete now, but could be retargeted if there is a more significant use. It was a correct use at the time, and was also used in an edit summary where it is not editable, so it should link to something (and if used for something else, a hatnote can be provided). Peter James (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Da-delete1

Cross-namespace redirect, likely a botched attempt to redirect to Template:Uw-delete1. See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_3#Template:Da-delete1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete When the redirect was created, the code for substitution was used instead of a link. It was deleted before [17] for CSD R2; not a valid criterion in this case, but the TFD outcome suggests moving without a redirect was preferred. Peter James (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neoboletus praestigiator

Please delete this redirect, as it is incorrect and misleading. Neoboletus praestigiator is a valid, independent species (see here, for example) and it should not redirect to another species. Esculenta (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Question Interesting. Would it make sense to retarget it to the genus Neoboletus? We can do that by ordinary editing. Central and Adams (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually probably not because it would create a cycle of the species were added to the list in the genus article.Central and Adams (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael D. Williams

Redirect left from a title correction page move. It was at the wrong title for two days in July. There are no links using the old name. R3 deletion was declined, apparently because the article was at the incorrect title for several weeks earlier before it was moved to Draftspace. MB 14:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Army green

Not mentioned in target article. Cannot find it mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia either (which is a bit shocking ... the only potential retargeting options I could find are Pinks and greens, the target of Army greens, or Army Service Uniform ... but I'd think anyone looking for the singular term "Army green" would be looking for a color, not information about a uniform.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • To me this means olive drab which is a redirect to Olive (color)#Olive drab so retarget there. Striking, now supporting Ljleppan's proposal. SpinningSpark 07:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. The target section was removed in this edit by user:ThunderBrine, along with many other named shades of green, after a brief edit war. No explanation to be found in edit summaries or talk page. Perhaps the editor can enlighten us on what is going on. SpinningSpark 07:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The section was moved to shades of yellow[18], where it can be found under the heading "army olive", but "army green" is still used in the text. Peter James (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That seems like a stupid place to put them. It certainly WP:ASTONISHes having them in yellow and not green. Olive drab and army green are used to blend in with green foliage not yellow flowers. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Agreed, that is stupid. This whole thing seems to have come about by one editor attempting to classify colours by some WP:OR arbitrary spectrography when in fact colour classification is quite subjective. This is not the only one, a large number of colours have been improperly moved in this way. SpinningSpark 14:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It appears that when you think of yellow, you only associate it with high saturation or high lightness, which is why you associate Olive with green, but Yellow as a color is able to appear at many different saturation levels and lightness levels (like cyan, red, and others).
      Regarding Olive's ability to blend in, lots of foliage don't only come in green. The "green bits" of plants (roots, stems, leaves) may come in Spring, Chartreuse, and Yellow, as well as Green at varying saturation, lightness, and hue. Olive, as a dark yellow, tends to blend in with many yellow and chartreuse plants (or generally desaturated plants), commonly found in dry/arid biomes (Deserts, Savannahs, and Grasslands). ThunderBrine (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Dry arid environments used a different camo colour, frequently known as khaki, and not army green nor olive drab. That's why they have those tan colored uniforms used in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan and North Africa. To blend with aridland plants and sand. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Yes, I know that darkening yellow results in olive, but that does not mean we should file it under yellow. We shoud file it under how the colour is commonly percieved. Changing the tint of a colour frequently results in it being perceived as a different or a new colour. Browns are not perceived as darkened orange. Pink is not percieved as desaturated red. Further, relying solely on spectrographic analysis for classification will result in some quite bizarre statements. The peak wavelength emission of the sun is in the green part of the spectrum, but nobody says the sun is green. Well almost nobody, I seem to remember Arthur C. Clark writing it in one of his SF books (without explanation so as to baffle everyone). How would you classify a mixture of red and green light? Everyone knows the result is perceived as yellow light. But it isn't yellow – it's an utterly different colour from monochromatic yellow, and many species of bird and insect have no trouble distinguishing them. Humans only see it that way because of our limited number of colour receptors, and it's a good job too because otherwise colour television wouldn't work. So should we make a new page for red-green (colour)? Not in my opinion we shouldn't, we should go with the subjective perception, not the objective spectrography. SpinningSpark 14:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The redirect and the page have been fixed, with further transparency being added. Army green → Shades of yellow#Army olive ThunderBrine (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Having army green under shades of yellow is truly WP:ASTONISHing. Also, I've never heard it referred as army olive, and I'm not convinced that is the WP:COMMONNAME. Unless there are multiple reliable sources stating something to the effect of army green is a yellow color that.., I'd suggest reinstating the content in shades of green. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is a good point. There is zilch in gbooks associating army green with yellow. All the results are coincidental mentions of the two colours on the same page. I support your proposal to return it under green. SpinningSpark 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Olive (color)#Olive drab. I'm struggling to come up with a more articulate rationale because this just seems so obvious. That's where discussion of this topic is. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tajickistan

Implausible misspelling. "c" and "k" are not adjacent letters on the keyboard. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible misspelling. The fact that these letters aren't adjacent on a keyboard is irrelevant, the misspelling is still valid. CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as a phonetically-sensible misspelling. It is very reasonable for the country to be encountered in conversation, searched up by someone interested. In that case, I think one would almost expect a -stan to be misspelt – this is one of many potential scenarios. Admittedly, it isn't very plausible, but is plausible enough IMO. J947 † edits 05:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uzbeckistan

Implausible misspelling. "c" and "k" are not adjacent letters on the keyboard. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible. Same as with the other nomination above. CycloneYoris talk! 03:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as plausible, same as CycloneYoris; same as above. As the nominator points out, this one won't be used as a typo; rather, as a misspelling. Has views as well, though I'd venture that may be down to some unbecoming behaviour in its history. J947 † edits 05:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bekistan

"Bekistan" is not short for Uzbekistan. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Most mentions in a web search are either hyphenated line breaks of Uzbekistan or of a likely-NN French actor, Luce Bekistan. This does not look to be any sort of likely misspelling. Has received a few views, but I find it unlikely that those are genuine Uzbekistan misspellings. J947 † edits 05:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uzbekistane

Implausible misspelling. "n" and "e" are not adjacent letters on the keyboard. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Here I agree with the nom. Having an "e" at the end even alters its pronunciation, so better to have this deleted. CycloneYoris talk! 03:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. English pronunciation rules seemingly aren't well understood, aren't uniformly utilised (e.g., give), and only apply to one language. Plus, -stan spellings are pretty inconsistent at the best of times. This spelling of Uzbekistan yields 742,000 GHits, suggesting this is a plausible redirect to deal with vagarities of transliteration – especially outdated, pre-standardised ones (?). Interestingly, it looks like the Uzbek language is actually transitioning from using the Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet. J947 † edits 05:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nimtaj Ayramlu

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

Cereal eating by humans

Another ridiculous redirect created by StrexcorpEmployee (talk · contribs) based on the GPT2 subreddit [19]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Recently created and no reasonably likelihood of being useful. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refine to Cereal#Cereals and civilization (per TartarTorte @12:33 UTC) was Keep). It sounds ridiculous, but this is one of humanity's defining topics. It could already be a list or disambiguation page given existing articles on the English Wikipedia. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refine to Cereal#Cereals and civilization: Per Louis above, this topic is phrased oddly but even the cereal page itself (in the section I am advocating to refine it to) says Cereals were the foundation of human civilization. [...] The term Fertile Crescent implies the spatial dependence of civilization on cereals. [...] Numerous Chinese imperial edicts stated: “Agriculture is the foundation of this empire,” while the foundation of agriculture were the Five Grains. TartarTorte 12:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That section title has been renamed and is now Cereal#Ancient history and the Middle Ages. All the content about cereals and civilization look out of place now with the new title. I would oppose refining to "Ancient history and the Middle Ages" only for the reason that the previous section "Prehistory" also mention that humans ate cereals. Courtesy ping CactiStaccingCrane as the editor who made the changes since the time of this nomination. Jay Diversity icon green.svg 06:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to section reworking complications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. May sound ridiculous, but is ultimately harmless and not implausible as users who are learning English or speak English as a second language may enter this search term. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak keep (or "Refine to Cereal#Cereals and civilization"). Yeah, that's an odd way to phrase it ... I now want to go look for a sentient box or bowl of cereal that is eating something while nearby some humans ... but that's so far-fetched that if anyone is searching this phrase, they are most likely intending to arrive at the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no section "Cereals and civilization". Jay 💬 05:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, I didn't read the above comments all the way through, apparently. Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete unless the target can be refined. As per my comment above, I don't see a single section for refining. Jay 💬 05:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have a problem with the retarget to the renamed section. It still covers cereal eating by humans as described above as the wording is still largely the same and talks about the importance of cereal eating to human history. So that's advocating the retarget to Cereal#Ancient history and the Middle Ages. TartarTorte 12:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refine to Cereal#History for still containing the most relevant information that this phrase may refer to despite the slight section rearrangement. Deletion is too extreme here IMO. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U k

Implausible search term. Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As U K exists, the existence or nonexistence of this redirect makes little difference, but I think it is plausible enough. —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep, plausible enough, and whatever happens, do not make this go to a different place than U K. —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - Harmless, someone searching this will be taken to what they were most likely looking for, and certainly seems plausible enough to me. A7V2 (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. Not sure how this would be implausible. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to UK (disambiguation). The lowercase and space leaves a lot of possibilities. CLYDEFRANKLIN 02:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to retargeting suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Question - Is there a plausible reason why someone searching for the United Kingdom would include a space in the search term? That's not usual for initialisms. Someone might search uk, UK, or Uk but why would they search u k? Adding a space doesn't seem like a likely typo and I don't see why someone would think to do it deliberately. I agree with Clyde that u k is not necessarily suggestive of "United Kingdom", but I don't see it as a plausible abbreviation for the other possibilities listed at the disambiguation page. If there is no plausible reason, then I'd actually lean towards agreeing with the nominator - this seems about as plausible as redirecting p r c to People's Republic of China. (Same applies to the all caps version.) – Scyrme (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the nominator that this is implausible and unnecessary. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this is a plausible search term that is not an error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: A WAXy counter-example to the lack of existence of P R C is that U S A exists. While It's not U s a, it's rather similar. TartarTorte 21:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think there's arguably a difference, in that U S A could plausibly be informed the common chant, U-S-A!. (U S A doesn't target the latter, but I think it should now that you mention it.) To my knowledge, similar chants do not exist for the UK or PRC. The USA is an exceptional case.
    That said, maybe I'm wrong about that; perhaps there is a plausible rationale for other spaced out initials which I'm not aware of. That's why I framed my earlier response as a question, and not necessarily as a vote. I didn't mean it as a WAXy example, I only meant that I don't see a rationale for a hypothetical p r c either. That it doesn't already exist wasn't the point; I'd be even fine with creating it if someone provides an answer for why spaced out initials is plausible in general. – Scyrme (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry @Scyrme I realize that came out passive-aggressive, which was not my intention. I was mostly trying to be self-deriding in saying my example was WP:WAX so it wasn't really a policy based retort in any regard. I think you're correct in that U S A should probably retarget U-S-A!. Sorry about that trout Self-trout. TartarTorte 12:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No worries, I see now that I misread. The apologies should be mine, sorry. I've gone ahead and retargeted U S A to U-S-A!. – Scyrme (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Uk already exists. Uk (disambiguation) also a redirect to a disambiguation page. 2405:9800:BA20:AB7A:401B:6EE7:75D8:26B (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep because redirects are cheap and this one had 59 hits in the last month. Maybe that's high because of this discussion, but U K had 22, which is also not nothing. Plus who freaking cares if this is a redirect? What harm is it doing? Wasting storage space? Central and Adams (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pageviews tend to be inflated in a redirect's first month – whether that be new page patrollers scouring the land, crawlers cataloguing, something else, or a mix. J947 † edits 05:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, I agree this redirect is nigh harmless and potentially useful given the sheer number of searches to its target. J947 † edits 05:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 11

Sacramento State green

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

Pine green

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

Moss green

Not mentioned at the target article, but is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deltacoronavirus

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

Niskaram

Not mentioned at target, although "namaskaram" is listed as a varient. MB 17:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete it seems to share the same root word as Namaste according to this article [20]. However, it doesn't mean that it is a synonym for the term and is instead a term for "prayer". --Lenticel (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latina (song)

No mention on target page, so no use, plus as far as I can see none of the categories are substantiated. If target is amended or better target found I have no problem withdrawing this deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.rp

  • .rp → .pl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

While RP can refer to Poland's full, formal name, Rzeczpospolita Polska, .rp does not appear to actually used for Polish websites, and it does not show up at List of Internet top-level domains. Delete unless evidence of use can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgive my laughter

Per precedent established at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#You'll get your rent when you fix this damn door!, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 3#Give me your rent, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 25#Give me rent, this is a non-notable quote not mentioned on the page (WP:R#D8). InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep "You Get What You Deserve", delete "Forgive my laughter"I can understand the first of the redirects, but the second is a very-frequently heard quote from the movie. When searching for Joker 2019 on YouTube and the results are sorted from most viewed to least viewed, the scene with Murray's death and the line is the second most viewed line. It's also heard very prominently. Additionally, when typing the quote on Google, autocomplete suggests the quote (albeit without the f bomb) as the fifth suggestion when only typing "you get" into the search box.
Moreover, while KnowYourMeme is an unreliable source when it comes to accuracy of facts and especially BLP, it does demonstrate popularity through the website's view counts. The quote's entry on KYM has over 61,416 views and is synonymous with the movie. It's not as famous as "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore", but that quote is still preserved as a redirect given its popularity and would violate the precedent established as the "Give me rent" discussion. If that quote isn't removed as a redirect, shouldn't this quote "get what it deserves"? (Apologies if I insult you)InvadingInvader (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
— Note to closing admin: InvadingInvader (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wizard of Oz quote is an iconic and highly well-known quote, which is mentioned at the redirect target and included at AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes. This is not the case for either of these Joker quotes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you taken into consideration the prevalence of the KnowYourMeme page, the YouTube clip's prominence and view count (76 million views on this video is the second most out of any Joker clip on YouTube), and the KnowYourMeme page? KYM may not be good enough as a source for notability of a full article, but given the prevalence of that quote's clip on YouTube and the Google autocomplete stats I mentioned earlier, along with 60,000+ views on KYM, this should at least justify a redirect. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, the past 30 days have had 37 hits for "You get what you deserve". Compare it to the more iconic quote ("Toto"), which only got 7 hits in the past 30, going solely on hits, "You get what you deserve" has more than six times the hits of "Toto" this month InvadingInvader (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plenty of memes have high viewcounts at KnowYourMeme and YouTube, but that doesn't mean they all need redirects. And more importantly, the article Joker (2019 film) makes no mention of either quote, making the redirects pointless and unhelpful to readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because it isn't in the article doesn't mean it pointless. There are plenty of redirects which are famous, not directly mentioned in the article, nor on an AFI list but exist, some of which are arguably less iconic than "You get what you deserve". I agree that not all memes and quotes and popular sets of materials need redirects, but I think that 76 Million views and the popularity of the Google autocomplete segment justifies its inclusion in the mainspace, even if it's an addition to the article after this discussion. Look at the redirect for You are one ugly motherfucker!; how come it's still up? It's not on AFI nor is it explicitly referred to in the Predator franchise's logo, but it's iconic to the series. "You get what you deserve" is iconic to its franchise. And do page hits not count? The more famous quote (Toto) only got 7 hits this month while "You Get what you deserve" got 37.
I suggest you focus your deletion nominations to redirects that get less hits or are less famous than this. The numbers speak for themselves. 76 Million views. 37 Hits this month. 60K views on KYM. Heck, even 545,000 Google results, which is even more than even Toto not being in Kansas anymore. This should be more than enough to justify the redirect's retention. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep It doesn't matter whether the quote is in the article, it only matters if it's a possible search term and if the target answers the likely question. These two cases are both. Almost certainly anyone searching on them wants to know where they're from, and redirecting to the movie answers that. Central and Adams (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Minimally notable quotes still have a lot of reach when they are from blockbuster movies, hence could help a lot of people navigate to the article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-mancy

Not specifically mentioned at target. Maybe a soft redirect to its Wiktionary entry (Wikt:-mancy) would be more suitable? CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Mancy (disambiguation) which contains the wiktionary link -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amir Ben Shimon

Circular redirect. The other one is at Amir Ben-Shimon. scope_creepTalk 07:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retarget both to F.C. Kafr Qasim#Current squad - Subject is an Israeli footballer who plays for F.C. Kafr Qasim. If no biographical article exists, then redirecting to the club he plays for seems best; he is mentioned at that article. – Scyrme (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The former was briefly an article because of an attempted cut-and-paste move from the latter. If we're going to reinstate one, it should be Amir Ben-Shimon, which was an article until the nominator created the circular redirect they noted in the nomination. - Eureka Lott 15:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restoring Amir Ben-Shimon and having Amir Ben Shimon has a redirect works for me. TartarTorte 17:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

塔罗牌

Delete per WP:RLOTE. No particular affinity between Tarot and the Chinese language. CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support per CycloneYoris. 99.99% of readers won't be able to decipher it and, if they can, they should be on the relevant language Wiki. Bermicourt (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete the article doesn’t even mention China so there is no evidence of a significant association.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: There's no greater inherent association between Tarot and its name in Chinese than in any other language, especially as it is not mentioned in the article. Delete per WP:RLOTE. TartarTorte 22:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Hong_Kong_Cantonese#From_English Where it is mentioned but I'm also fine with deletion. --Lenticel (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Oppose retargeting to Hong Kong Cantonese since this term is used in all varieties of Chinese, and in any case Hong Kong Cantonese is generally not written in simplified Chinese. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quartz (magazine)

No evidence that Quartz is an online magazine, and it doesn't publish a printed magazine either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vaanku

This used to be the title for Vaanku (film). The film article was moved so the basename could redirect. But Vaanku is not mention in Adhan, so without some justification, this should be undone. MB 04:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added Vanku, also not mentioned (WP:ASTONISH). Top search hits for this are a Chinese electronics company. MB 04:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added three more similar. MB 17:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: IMHO a) Vanku / Vaanku is transliteration of Malayalam word വാങ്ക്. Wikipedia is not dictionary to redirect those transliterations to → Adhan. b) A good option can be to make Vanku / Vaanku as disambiguation page there Vaanku (film) and Adhan  both can find mention and any other language any other article too. c) If Vaanku (film) does not find mention in Adhan#In popular culture then it is supposed to find place there.
Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6100s

I don't see how this is useful, one particular future century. MB 04:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: There are more than 500 redirects from future years and ranges.[21] PrimeHunter (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - I think the vast majority of these redirects created by DerekSquared, where nothing is mentioned about the specific century/decade/year, should be deleted. In this particular case there is nothing in the target about the 6100s so this is an unsuitable redirect. A7V2 (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete I know which ones will be tackled next. Most likely the decades, a number of which are leftover from when we had separate articles covering the 4th–10th millenia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete for having no apparent use. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asparagus (color)

Not mentioned in the target article, and doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia either. I'm assuming the subject of these redirects was at the target article at some point, but if it was, it seems it was over at least a year ago. In addition, Asparagus (color) is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It probably was once in the target. This smells like yet another stupid move of content (see #Army green below) but I'm tired of doing the hard work of trawling through the history to find out what happened to it. I vote to put it back from wherever it was moved to. SpinningSpark 14:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment – Regarding the history, Asparagus (color) was an unreferenced stub until it was overwritten as a redirect by a revision on 03:10, 6 March 2008 by Wrad. Looking at Shades of green, it appears multiple articles were merged to that destination around 6 and 7 March 2008 by Wrad and PaleAqua. (See Talk:Shades of green § The Plan) The material remained there and by around 2017 it was no longer unreferenced.

However, on 6 February 2021 ThunderBrine thoroughly reorganised the article, deleting much of its content including the material originating with Asparagus (color). I don't know if these changes were discussed anywhere (they don't appear to have been discussed at Talk:Shades of green), and no edit summaries were given. It does not appear that the material was moved anywhere; rather, it seems it was deleted, so there's nothing to "put back" unless we recover it from an old revision. I'm not sure what the reasons were for cutting some entries (like 'asparagus green') while leaving others in. – Scyrme (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderBrine: What do you think about this redirect? Your opinion may be helpful, since you've been editing Shades of chartreuse lately and were the one who deleted the material that was moved to Shades of green. If you moved the material rather than deleting it, where did you move it? – Scyrme (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they were in shades of green page, I most likely moved colors to chartreuse or spring green, based on HSV/HSL, which is the modern tool used for classification of color. I would have moved shades of green to the yellow and cyan color families if the colors were drastically inaccurate to their color family. (it was usually shades of dark yellow or dark cyan; those two subfamilies were often mistakenly put in the green family. People to this day still think of olive as a shade of dark green rather than dark chartreuse or dark yellow.) ThunderBrine (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderBrine: I don't see "asparagus" listed at any of those destinations. If it helps you remember what happened, here's a link to what the content was: revision 1000906644#Asparagus. – Scyrme (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Asparagus" has a HSV/HSL hue of 93°, so it should appear in Shades of chartreuse rather than any other color page. If it doesn't, I wonder if someone changed it sometime recently as to not being in the chartreuse/"yellow-green" family. ThunderBrine (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You had added it but without attribution, and it was copied content, which is why it was removed. Jay 💬 13:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nguyen Ngọc Tho

(Disclosure: I nominated this 6 months ago and the result was "No consensus") This is a mostly unused redirect that while WP:CHEAP is highly implausible. It would require someone to have the ability to type the ọ character, but none of the other diacritics. The only languages other than Vietnamese to use ọ in any form are Romangol, Igbo, and Yoruba. I'm arguing it's highly unfeasible someone would be able to type ọ but not any of the other diacritics. TartarTorte 00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep - Per the arguments at the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#Nguyen Ngọc Tho. Even one of the delete votes highlights why this should be kept: "only useful if...". So we have a redirect which might be useful, gets some usage and is clearly unambiguous and harmless, so should be kept. Note also that the argument about correct use of diacritics assumes that the searcher actually knows how to spell this. A7V2 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verdi Competition

While named for Verdi, it does not appear in the target article. TartarTorte 00:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. It seems to be a notable international competition and I've seen some potential references that say this is one of the first steps to becoming a musical virtuoso. I think someone more versed in classical music might be able to create an article out of this. --Lenticel (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 10

Nightmare Alley (upcominh film)

Target not upcoming, upcoming misspelled. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Would have tagged for R3 if it was recently created. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete More to the point, the film is no longer upcominh so we don't need upcominh to disambiguate. We probably should never use the term upcominh to disambiguate per WP:CRYSTAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris troutman (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: This film is not upcoming or "upcominh". This is both implausible and COSTLY, if another film named Nightmare Alley were to be made. TartarTorte 22:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete film is no longer upcominh. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Icabobin (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping "(upcoming film)" redirects is already harmful in many cases; the implausible typo is just icing on the cake. Glades12 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:GIF

Not a useful redirect; I'd expect WP:GIF to be a shortcut for a page about GIF animations on Wikipedia, not a DYK nomination. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Target subjects no longer "upcoming"

No longer upcoming. In addition, none of these redirects have any incoming links from the "article" space. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete not useful to have redirect with upcoming for released film. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Indagate: I removed your duplicate comments when I merged the sections. However, I noticed that this comment was not on every section I posted prior to merging the sections; you may want to confirm this comment refers to all the nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, yeah my comment can apply to any redirect with upcoming in its name that's released Indagate (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure why, but this redirect seems to see a significant amount of traffic. -2pou (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NOTE: This comment refers to the redirect West Side Story (upcoming film) Vikram (upcoming film). Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Title corrected. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @2pou: I bypassed several redirects in the "article" namespace towards Vikram (upcoming film) before and after (Turned out that I missed a few. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)) making this nomination, so that is quite plausible. (That, and I've noticed that in the history of Wikipedia, almost all titles and redirects towards articles about films made out of the geographic region which its target was made tend to get a ton of views if the title is linked almost anywhere in any article, so your claim is understandable; but, since the links to the redirect have now been bypassed, the views should start disappearing as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all: Even with Vikram (upcoming film) having significant traffic (for a seemingly unknown reason), it doesn't make sense to have an inaccurate redirect especially if another film named Vikram were to come out. I think it's also possible people are looking for Vikram (actor)'s next film, which would make this inaccurate regardless. TartarTorte 23:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: isn't it standard to keep redirects from page moves, even if the original title is no longer correct? Not all incoming links are internal links. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A redirect leftover from a page move that is unhelpful or WP:COSTLY is always going to be a redirect that is unhelpful or WP:COSTLY. Also, some of these are not {{R from move}}s. And the external link concern, in most cases, only applies to the "File:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all – this should not be controversial, readers will not be looking for these redirects because the films are no longer upcoming. In fact, these kinds of redirects (along with "Untitled ... sequel/film") can usually be speedy deleted under WP:G6, no discussion is needed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To add on to this, it's clear from the lengthy list of past discussions (virtually all of which closed as delete) that there is strong consensus to delete these kinds of redirects. @Steel1943, I suggest nominating similar redirects for speedy deletion per G6 in the future, as this isn't a controversial topic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @InfiniteNexus: It has been occasionally been somewhat controversial the past few times a nomination like this occurred; I tend to nominate at least one batch of redirects like these every year or so. There has usually been at least one editor who will say "keep" for some reason like page views or something. And WP:G6 is open to interpretation by the approving/denying administrator, and these are not a clear case of a technical reason. Unless there is a new WP:CSD criterion created for redirects such as these, this is the place they should go. (But if a discussion were to occur suggesting such a speedy criterion be created, expect me to support it.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have indeed toyed with the idea of proposing a new speedy deletion criterion, and would definitely be open to it if there is support fromt the masses. I just haven't found the need to do so so far since G6 has been working well for me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per reasons given above, many if not all of these might need to be reused one day for new projects as well. It really should be standard to auto-delete these kinds of redirects once works have come out.★Trekker (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment It is probably obvious, but please make sure there's no older content in the histories of these redirects before deleting. (If they are the result of page moves, that's unlikely the case but you never know). Any redirects that have significant content entries should be history merged into the main film article. Masem (t) 14:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Redirects like these should be added to WP:G8, in analogy to Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted. As soon as the target is released, no upcoming film of that title any longer exists, so the redirect becomes misleading. Paradoctor (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as obviously not about upcoming films once they come out. We seriously need a new criterion for speedy deletion for these. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unknown Pollutant

"Unknown" is not mentioned at the target, nor does the target suggest that it is a term for unknown pollutants. Google Scholar searches don't suggest that these terms are used interchangeably. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah that makes sense! Sorry about that. I thought it may be of use as that is a word i searched when i was searching for "Contaminants of Emerging Concern" after forgetting the exact term, so i thought it would be of use as a redirect. Although given the precedent doesn't exist, and that Wikipedia is more official than the wiki work i am used to, and that "unknown" doesn't necessarily make sense ( "unknown potential" would be accurate i guess, but that makes even lese sense as a redirect) that's fine, do what you need to do. Eric Lotze (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supreme Bowl

Not mentioned at the target, internet search results are mostly for a Newark restaurant by this name. Delete unless evidence of use or another justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: Searching google for "supreme bowl" + USFL, I got pretty much nothing other than this redirect. TartarTorte 18:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as vague at best. I'm getting hits ranging from steel bowls to restaurants like Kentucky Fried Chicken. --Lenticel (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14 Commonweatlh realms

These re-directs are already targeted towards the Succession to the British throne page. But, I'm seeking to have these 14 redirects, re-targeted directly to a section of that page. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What section do you want to retarget them to? TartarTorte 14:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Current line of succession" section, in the Succession to the British throne page. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed the nom to have the current targets and tagged the pages to link to here. TartarTorte 16:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no policy or guideline requiring every realm be treated identically. There are different circumstances in different realms and different amounts of information about each; some "Monarchy of [Realm]" articles will have succession sections, others might have seprarate succession articles, still others have no information on that topic. Further, by allowing the UK to stand alone, you're gunning for symmety in asymmetry. You are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll see what others think. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I think the current redirects are valid. A person looking for information on succession may not necessarily be looking specifically for the line of succession, so it's better to have these redirect to the broader article. The suggestion made by Miesianiacal in re Canada may work as well, but I would have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Presidentman. If there exists a lot of info on a particular monarchy's succession, that article can be created and expanded. Peter Ormond 💬 12:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for 'Succession to the Canadian throne' ... this particular redirect should point at Succession to the Throne Act, 2013; there is no mention of Canada as a discrete entity on the Succession to the British throne page, except a link to the newly proposed target. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is much more to succession to the Canadian throne than just one act of parliament. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe Monarchy of Canada#Succession and Regency? TartarTorte 18:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, a reasonable target. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose, until they're made into their own pages. But of course we wouldn't be retargeting Succession to the British throne to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom page :) GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constitution of Afghanistan

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

🃠

Unclear what emoji or symbol this is… I only see an empty square. It's also unclear what connection it has to The Fool card. Therefore, I suggest deletion, unless someone can prove its meaning and what affinity it has with the article it currently targets. CycloneYoris talk! 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Googling the character 🃠 brings up (amongst others) our article, Playing cards in Unicode, explaining 🃠 (U+1F0E0) is The Fool card in Tarot. Also, https://unicodeplus.com/U+1F0E0.
According to https://unicodeplus.com/U+1F0E0 , this character displays on MS Windows (untested), so on those systems it may not be unusual for people to right-click search Wikipedia to find its meaning.
Maybe The Fool (Tarot card) should mention the Unicode character, but I'm not sure an appropriate place for that info (since it has no infobox nor sections on representations thereof).
Llew Mawr (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep The primary benefit of redirects like this is so that someone which is incapable of seeing the character for technical reasons can search it on Wikipedia to discover what the character represents. U+1F0E0 is an obscure character which many computers can't display (e.g. my computer displays a box with "01F0E0" in it), so this redirect would be useful for anyone who finds the character and wants to know what it means (and usefulness is one of the main reasons to keep a redirect). Maybe there should be some method of citing redirects like this one in order to help prove that they go to the correct target, but this one does (the Unicode character database which came with my computer describes it as "PLAYING CARD FOOL", which is further evidence in addition to Llew Mawr's that the target is correct). --ais523 12:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ææ, Öö

  • Ææ → Æ  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
  • Öö → Ö  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Why the heck it was be that there!?! 2405:9800:BA20:AB7A:401B:6EE7:75D8:26B (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak keep: These redirects seem a bit odd. For any other Uppercase lowercase redirect like Aa or Uu it takes you to AA or UU; however, we have no ÆÆ or ÖÖ pages, so there doesn't seem to be a different appropriate target. The current targets I guess work, but could be confusing if you were trying to find something with the abbreviation ÆÆ or ÖÖ; however, I can't seem to find anything with the abbreviation ÆÆ and the closest thing I could find to ÖÖ is OÖ, which is the two letter abbreviation for the Austrian state of Upper Australia or Oberösterreich. TartarTorte 15:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: To amend my previous statement Öö is a word in a few languages, but I think a redirect to ö is better thank a soft-redirect to wikt:öö; especially as one of those is Finnish for the name of the letter ö. TartarTorte 15:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep doublet of majuscule and minuscule forms are commonly found in text to represent letters -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C. difficile

Other redirects of the form C. diff (there are many: [22] ) point to Clostridioides difficile infection rather than Clostridioides difficile. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep as the normal abbreviation for the species name. All the other redirects should probably target the organism rather than the disease as well, but that's a separate discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least the redirect C.difficile should be handled the same as this one for now, though. All others abbreviate to "Diff". Mdewman6 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C difficile should also be bundled, as a group of three redirects. Both C.difficile and C difficile should be tagged as {{R from avoided double redirect|C. difficile}} and target Clostridioides difficile -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are more too that target the infection article that I previously missed. The issue is that the article about the organism was created much later and the original article was left to focus on the infection, so there are many redirects that need to be reconciled. Not sure if the abbreviated versions should remain pointing to the infection article or not. We could have a new bundled nomination of all the redirects, but that's cumbersome since there are so many. Perhaps we should just reach rough consensus on what should target the organism article and which ones should target the infection article, and someone can then just do the cleanup as appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep proper abbreviation. The target also contains information about infection, so it also serves that -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnCap Dave Smith

There is no mention of AnCap or Anarcho-capitalism at the target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • KeepI believe there was, and it may have been removed, Dave Smith is a self described AnCap. I am busy for part of today, but can look into this more later and see about adding something to the page. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 12:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://reason.com/video/2022/07/25/should-libertarians-root-for-a-national-divorce/
Here is just one of many sources one can find justifying Dave Smith described by this label. I believe it should be fine to keep this as a redirect. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixated on the irregular format and didn't even note the nominator's concern. Those should be added to the article. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indian filmmakers' next [films, without the last word]

These redirects are also their respective creator's "next" (what?), which will keep changing for as long as they continue to work in cinema, like with the consensus with the other discussion last week. Not sure why we still need these, so I thought I'd bring them to RfD to discuss. Regards, SONIC678 06:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete all: All COSTLY redirects TartarTorte 16:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all as a textbook case of WP:COSTLY issues. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support deletion as the redirects are confusing at best --Lenticel (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all. "This filmmaker's next" is a hopelessly confusing redirect format as it can refer to literally anything people do repeatedly (meals, showers, shopping tours, doctor's appointments...). Now that the films are out, these redirects are both confusing and wholly incorrect, making them an even bigger disservice to readers than they were from the start. I found Vijay Krishna - Yash Raj's Next Project too; can we add it to this RFD? Glades12 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure thing. Thanks for finding that one, I must've missed it when I nominated the others. Regards, SONIC678 02:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as uselessly costly redirects that cease to be useful once the targets are released over and over again. I wish these were salted, but one such salting proposal of mine did not get enough consensus. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Ext

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

List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

Soul2Sole FC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Soul2Sole FC

August 8

Dark olive drab

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Dark olive drab

Dark Olive

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Dark Olive

Grooming conspiracy theory

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Grooming conspiracy theory

Gray-asparagus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Gray-asparagus

Wikipedia:LOSS

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

Wikipedia:GONE

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

Wikipedia:LATE

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

DikuMUD Nilgiri (disambiguation)

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

David F. Leavitt

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

2022 Texas Trailer Truck

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

Lambda sond

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Lambda sond

Vertex (urinary bladder)

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

Vertex (topography)

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

2034 Winter Olympics

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

BLPprod

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#BLPprod

Iron Golem

Target has changed back and forth several times between different video games with no discussion. MB 03:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Disambiguate to all prior targets -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete As overly vague. It is also the name of a Dark Souls boss and a recurring Final Fantasy enemy. However, there is no specific page with the name "Iron Golem" it needs to disambiguate. However, I would also not be opposed to a disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. There are almost two dozen articles with mentions of iron golems, and as far as I can see from a quick glimpse, none of those entities appear to get anywhere close to being significant subtopics of those articles, and so are below the noteworthiness threshold for disambiguating, and the search results do a good job of revealing them. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oh well: should have looked closer: Iron Golem is the alternative title of the TV film Iron Invader, so that's one valid target. Disambiguation could work, with one entry for that, another for Golem (which unfortunately doesn't mention iron varieties but is the closest thing to a general article), and a {{canned search}} to reveal the search results. – Uanfala (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the possible targets, one of which has an article (the film). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate When I made my initial redirect change to the Minecraft article, it was because most readers typically associate the Iron Golem with the mob in Minecraft which is more well known within popular media as well as the fact that most of the redirects history was redirecting to the Minecraft article. With that all being said, there are other fictional entities with the same name so a disambiguation is a more appropriate course of action than only focusing on one, especially since it doesn't even have a standalone article. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate per those above. BD2412 T 06:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Iron Invader, which looks to be the only cromulent target. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any of the other suggested disambiguation entries meeting WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay Diversity icon green.svg 06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Iron Invader since it's alternatively named as such. I don't see the point on a dab with entries about games with iron golems in it as it is a very ubiquitous enemy monster. --Lenticel (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Iron Invader, none of the video game examples described in this discussion appear to be prominent enough to merit inclusion in their respective articles, and thus are not good dab-entries. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fuckfest

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Fuckfest

뻸

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

Giant white shark

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 15#Giant white shark

Vincian

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

August 6

Ja'rod

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Ja'rod

M&L

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

Interstate Twenty-one

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

2022 July Dnirpo missile strike

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

Animal Parade

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replace with DAB page per Lentical and Thryduulf -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

J. R. Get Money

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#J. R. Get Money

Dienestrol (unspecified)

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

Egyptian First Republic

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

Eric Blumrich

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

Butter (alchemy)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Butter (alchemy)

French world

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#French world

August 5

Do It (Empire Cast song)

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

Avocado (color)

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

Bed death

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

Non-veg joke

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Non-veg joke

Mint (credit cards)

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

Template:Apocalypse

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

Male (gender)

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

2014 Ukrainian Civil War

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

Windows SChannel

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

Knegro

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

N (math)

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to disambiguation pages. While deletion received a significant amount of votes, in discussion the issues raised regarding the disambiguation appear to have all been addressed, and a nontrivial amount of the standing deletion votes were made before retargeting was proposed.

Wikipedia:CHG

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12#Wikipedia:CHG

Magnesium-L-threonate

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Restore article at Magnesium L-threonate

"I invented email" guy

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

Ivy Road

Not mentioned at target. I did find "Ivy Road is a new independent game development studio run by Davey Wreden..., and supported by Annapurna Interactive" here. Searching within en.WP finds a plethora of actual roads by that name. Recommend delete. MB 01:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget per Lenticel as the only target having an article. If the Ivy Road game studio had a section or even a reference at the founders' pages, then we had a case for a disambiguation page, however the founders don't have articles on them. The C418 relation to the studio is too minor as he is composing music for an untitled game being produced by the studio. Readers interested in the other roads having the same name can use the Search. Jay Diversity icon green.svg 06:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. The previous name of Kenilworth Road is mentioned only in passing in the article's "History" section, leading me to think it unlikely that anyone looking for the stadium will use this as a search term. Better to let the search results show various possible meanings. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smiledog.jpg

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