Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfD)
"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 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 1 0 0 107 20 128
TfD 0 0 0 2 4 6
MfD 0 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 0 10 3 13
AfD 0 0 0 0 1 1

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 unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


Shortcut

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects
"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 and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

July 10[edit]

Wikipedia:Code of conduct[edit]

I believe that all these should redirect to the same page. I think it's better for all of them to redirect to Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct. Just as a note, I made the last 2 (Wikipedia:CoC and Wikipedia:Coc) QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 09:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First-person adventure[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. In addition, First-person adventure was formerly an article (See here) that was merged via nominated for WP:AFD in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First-person adventure); per that revision, the subject of these redirects is "a hybrid genre of first person shooters and action-adventures", which neither represents the target section nor the target article at all. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2NumForIce (speak|edits) 21:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further opinions on restoring?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 05:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tailspin (cocktail)[edit]

Not listed at target, or at List of cocktails, List of drinks or List of IBA official cocktails. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Soft delete. There is an old article in the history, but little chance it would be kept in its current form (WP:SNOWBALL) so probably not worth restoring and sending to Afd. That said, it does seem like a plausibly notable topic. But better to WP:TNT it probably. Treat the old WP:BLAR like an expired PROD and soft delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: The older content was copied to wikibooks and is now at b:Bartending/Cocktails/Glossary#T. Jay 💬 09:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we soft redirect to wikibooks? Mdewman6 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see only Bengal potatoes at Category:Redirects to Wikibooks. Jay 💬 17:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wikibooks. I have no idea how attribution is handled with these old Wikibook transfers, but even if unnecessary and/or rarely done, it seems like a good idea to maintain this link with a soft redirect, at least until/unless there is content on enwiki about the topic. Second choice: soft delete per my original comments. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is a Wikibooks redirect feasible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 05:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no reason why not, and I think this is a case where a Wikibooks redirect needs to be proven unfeasible; there clearly is precedent for having Wikibooks redirects, with the above-mentioned Bengal potatoes. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heterophylly[edit]

After closing the move at Shoot, I went to update the redirects, and stumbled across a couple that didn't make sense to me. I don't think Shoot (botany) is the best target for any of these; not sure about Heteroblasty (botany) either, and they may fall under WP:R#D10 as broad topics that need their own articles (especially Anisophylly, which is not mentioned at either target). At the very least, Heterophylly and Heterophyllous should be synced. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, that's rather a mess. I think the first thing to do would be to create coverage for Anisophylly, which is entirely different from Heterophylly. I can't find any history that it was ever covered, am I missing something? Anisophylly, "not quite the same leaves", is when there are leaves of two different sizes on the same shoot, little leaves alternating with the big ones, as shown here [[1]] and we have it in at least one Commons photo here
Columnea cruenta, painted leaves. (9641982536).jpg
. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Astro-Knights[edit]

It looks as if this one was created for a section which has since been deleted. Cannot see any mention of such a title. Delete? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 9[edit]

Template:Max/2[edit]

Largely unused set of template redirects from the days of pre-modularization. They should have been deleted back when it was made into a module. SWinxy (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This is standard cleanup at TfD after converting a template to a module (or to not needing sub-pages). Gonnym (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beto Vazquez Infinity[edit]

I want to delete this redirect in order to move (preserving history) Beto Vázquez Infinity (with á) to here (without á). I made the move (from a->á) long time ago, but I was wrong. Looking forward to fix this. Neo139 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong venue – The requested moves venue is intended for this purpose, and people there would be more experienced in this. Place a technical request if you expect it to be non-controversial, otherwise, start a requested move. Randi🦋TalkContribs 20:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minister of Helth[edit]

There are a boatload of health ministers, and typing this exact misspelling results in many correctly-spelled results. No incoming links. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So digging into the refs for this in the article, it looks like the actual term was "Minister for Helth", which makes sense given the use of "for" in the current name. So I would be inclined to target this version using "of" to Health minister as a misspelling of Minister of Health (an avoided double redirect), perhaps with a hatnote to the current target, but that should only be done if Ministry of Helth is handled similarly (retargeted to Ministry of Health), and it seems too late to bundle here. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been less than 24 hours, unless I'm mistaken. I don't think bundling is too late. Minister for Helth is also relevant. – Scyrme (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget Minister of Helth to Health minister and retarget Ministry of Helth to Ministry of Health. Now that everything is before us here, I think the version using "for" should be kept and the versions using "of" targeted to the broader targets as misspellings per my comments above. Note that Ministry for Helth doesn't exist, or for that matter, neither does Ministry for Health, but perhaps these should. I oppose retargeting to Doug Everingham at the moment because the only use of "Helth" on that article is "Department of Helth", not using the term with minister or ministry. Perhaps if the text there can been expanded to use the terms of these redirects, with the references updated, then retargeting there could be considered. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three–four-way split as it stands.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Reiterating my support for retargeting to Doug Everingham; I've copypasted the citations from the ministry article to Everingham's own article, and now the latter has (slightly) more information on the topic. Continuing to target to the Health Department as a whole gives the impression that Australians still spell it the "Helth Minister", which does not appear the case from what I can see. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Combat jujitsu[edit]

Inconsistent targets. WP:DIFFCAPS may apply but would favour the Brazilian invention for the proper noun and generic jujutsu for sentence case, whereas current targets make the opposite distinction. A dab like Combat judo is one possibility. Certes (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pier 27 (San Francisco)[edit]

Not interchangeable redirects. Unnecessary WP:SURPRISE. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't fully understand the nomination statement, but in any case delete as not being mentioned in that section, and only being mentioned once in conjunction with pier 29, so unlikely to be of any value. I think if mention could be added to the current section (if the pier was of importance) then it would be a reasonable redirect as it seems unlikely someone searching this would be looking for something else. A7V2 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umar Vadillo[edit]

Notwithstanding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Vadillo (2nd nomination), the subject is not now mentioned at the target and the redirect is therefore confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Saragarhi (film)[edit]

No mention of film at target Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep and add mention at target. The page has been getting lot of views, so readers are interested. The page has history and I have just tagged the redirect as such. Note that Battle of Saragarhi (Movie) is a former title of the page and may be bundled as well. It does appear that Rajkumar Santoshi hasn't shelved the film, and the page may even be restored to the standalone article, if the film notability criteria is met.[2][3][4][5][6]. Jay 💬 10:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No mention. I don't think these kinds of redirects are useful even if there was a mention, unless there is some information about the film. A7V2 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swipe left[edit]

Retarget to Pointing device gesture, where general usage is described, unless anyone could propose a better target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. The terms swiping left or right go beyond just Tinder and applies to several dating apps or colloquial language more generally. But I didn't see the terms mentioned at Dating app, Online dating or Swipe in any real detail. Maybe it's best to delete these to not center Tinder from more general terms. I'm not happy with the proposed retarget as "swipe" is not explicitly mentioned at the article, and it loses any association with dating apps which I suspect would be the connection people would be searching for. ― Synpath 18:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Soft redirect to the respective existing Wiktionary entries. I came here looking up "swipe right" to make sure I got the meaning right. (I didn't.) I'm not aware of any other significant idiomatic use of these terms.
Paradoctor (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muslim scholars[edit]

I think it would be better if this targeted Lists of Islamic scholars rather than assuming that contemporary scholars are the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swade[edit]

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

Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor[edit]

Implausible search term (the first two words would yield the same result). – bradv 23:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you agree that Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor is usable just as [[]] or a pipe?
Pat Robertson and Zionism is implicitly mentioned in that section. That's the section I had in mind "Pat Robertson has been a long-term friend of the state of Israel, and continues to be so.". — Invasive Spices (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor, if it had been something more along the lines of "Pat Robertson's views on Charles Taylor" I would say weak keep, but if anything on second look I'm more inclined to say delete (as opposed to weak) since there are no dealings mentioned in that section. I'm not sure what context a link would be appropriate but definitely there are countless instances where a piped link is more appropriate than creating a redirect, and this is probably one. For Pat Robertson and Zionism, I don't think you should be equating Zionism with supporting Israel, they are not the same. Presidentman's suggested target is in some ways better due to it actually being about Zionism, but I think it is too brief a mention to warrant a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
his $8,000,000 (USD) investment in a Liberian gold mine ? All 3 paragraphs in the target section are about PR & CT. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does that really have more than the quote I copied in my comment above? Invasive Spices (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the same to be honest. But I concur with A7V2 that I don't think you should be equating Zionism with supporting Israel. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Damaon, Diu& Silvassa[edit]

Misspelled redirect: ampersand should have a space before and after it. No pages link here. Bastewasket (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Union Territory of Damaon, Diu& Silvassa[edit]

Misspelled redirect: ampersand should have a space before and after it. No pages link here. Bastewasket (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 8[edit]

Zrinyi tank[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn- it's an assault gun, which is similar enough

Bakugan[edit]

Currently, Bakugan redirects to Bakugan Battle Brawlers. But shouldn't there be an article about Bakugan itself (as the media franchise as a whole, from 2007 to present day)? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 13:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. It looks like the page for the first anime is serving as the general article for the franchise via the Other Media, Games and Merchandising sections. Janky, but the redirect seems helpful I suppose. Splitting the content into a new article would seem warranted. ― Synpath 01:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep as currently the correct target (it discusses more than just the show). No prejudice against potentially moving the current target to this and/or some kind of split. A7V2 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Silent Service (TV series)[edit]

Target section does not exist, and target article does not mention the redirect's name. jlwoodwa (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I created this, but I don't recall the details. The targeted section did exist in the article at the time. There is an IMDB entry for it. And there are numerous articles that link directly to this (not through a template), suggesting there may be some notability. But as things currently stand, I'm not sure where this could be retargeted. older ≠ wiser 12:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Addendum, it appears the content was removed on 14:55, 3 May 2023 by 71.68.129.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the comment reverted edits done by a possible sockpuppet -- although the content had been present in the article for a long time previous and the edit seems to have removed a lot of material. There followed a series of revert warring between IP 162 and 85.255.237.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which ended when King Shadeed made a final revert that essentially endorsed the removal done by IP 162. I've no idea whether there was any basis for the sock puppet accusation or the final removal. As far as I can tell (with very limited expertise) the removed content appears to have been valid content. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi, I'm just seeing the notification. The vandal edits were done by the same person behind the multiple IPs, which apparently IS a sock puppet. I've also noticed in the same IP 71's history, the same user behind IP 85.255.235.185 also re-did the vandal edits. It's the same person behind the other multiple IPs who attacked the same user IP 71 just to have his/her way. Feel free to tag me again when needed. King Shadeed (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    King Shadeed@ what was the vandalism? The edit by 71.68.129.162 appeared to remove a huge chunk of content with no reason other than an apparently unfounded accusation of sock puppetry. older ≠ wiser 19:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've just checked back in history. The IP user apparently was cleaning up vandalism that was originally done on April 28. There was also a "continued from" I've noticed that was done by the other person behind multiple IDs and the IP user 71.68.129.162 was cleaning it up. Then I've noticed as I went through the history that 71.68.129.162 managed to have combined the lists of Revue Studios and Universal Television into one list. I've noticed that the person also did the same thing at a few more pages. King Shadeed (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm still confused as to precisely what the vandalism was or what has happened to the large amount of content that was removed. older ≠ wiser 19:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @King Shadeed: You supported the edits of an editor which were supposedly reverts of a sock, but you have not been able to explain how that removal of content is related to the April 28 edits. Also @MrOllie: you repeated the removal of content after the page was protected, so you may want to explain as well. Jay 💬 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El Muerto (2024 film)[edit]

Delete: This film no longer has a release date; all incoming links in the mainspace have been updated to El Muerto (upcoming film), while the draftspace redirects have also been updated to point to the target Draft:El Muerto (upcoming film), and are unlikely to be useful in the event the film receives a new release date or not. The lattermost draft redirect is an incomplete disambiguation, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep Draft:El Muerto (2024 film) and Draft:El Muerto (film) as {{R from move}}s in the Draft namespace targeting the live draft, considering that the Draft namespace is not indexed by search engines (and thus should never appear in search engines' search results) the fact that these redirects retain a trail about where the contents of the draft are currently located, and redirects in the Draft namespace are not intended to be used as search terms to locate pages in the article space. (In other words, the majority of the reasons the nominator has stated for the Draft namespace redirects to be deleted is essentially not applicable.) Weak keep El Muerto (2024 film) as potentially harmless for now since regardless of the disambiguator, it gets readers to the information they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. The two draft redirects have no practical function. El Muerto (2024 film) is factually incorrect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep all - Definitely don't delete the draft redirects, per Steel1943 but also since if someone has the url saved, then it will still work (why make it difficult for them?). Keep the non draft one as well as a perfectly valid search term given the initial release date was 2024. A7V2 (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maynardville Highway[edit]

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

GGKEY (identifier)[edit]

It's not linked to in any template. If a template can be found for this to be linked to, then a redirect of this nature may make sense. However, at the moment, it doesn't really work as an {{R from identifier}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sickie[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These terms are not mentioned in either of the target articles. These redirects were discussed as a group in 2021, but no resolution was found. As it stands, the target articles contain no context about these terms, and in general, it is unclear on where exactly they should target, if anywhere. (For example, these redirects seem related to Sick, but that's probably an improper association as well.) For these reasons, I think these redirects should be deleted, but at the bare minimum I believe the redirects should all target the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget sicky sickie to absenteeism Dictionaries seem to define "sickie" as falsely claiming to be sick, so absenteeism is the more appropriate target IMO. See [7], [8], and [9] for example. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Presidentman: I'm assuming that you mean "retarget Sickie to Absenteeism"? Either way though, it's not really helpful for readers to be targeted to an article that does not mention or identify the redirects, given that the redirects themselves are not an alternative form or variation of the word "absenteeism". Without mention and per your explanation, seems the topic of these redirects could have WP:REDLINK potential as a subtopic of Absenteeism. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, thanks for the catch. I could get behind a deletion per WP:REDLINK if there are enough sources for a separate article. A section in the preexisting one might be better though. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment There's definitely sources for this (search for "chuck a sickie"/"chucking a sickie", it's common slang in Australia), but probably not enough for a standalone article. I don't think these should be kept without a brief mention. I'm not sure where in Absenteeism this mention could be added as there's no discussion of cultural significance etc. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2023 (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, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't just Australian slang. It's international. Some dictionaries explicitly label it as British English, but as I understand it's common in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as well. The more common phrase is "pull a sickie" rather than "chuck", at least in British usage.
I don't think Absenteeism is the correct target for any of these redirects as that article defines its topic as a "habitual pattern" of "unplanned absences". Most mentions of sickness/health in that article are not in relation to falsely claimed illness, but rather in relation to medical explanations for absenteeism (that is, actual illnesses as a cause of a habitual pattern of unplanned absences). "Pulling a sickie" isn't generally a habitual activity, but rather a spontaneous thing (eg. dodging work for a day to go to an event, to sleep in, or to sleep off a hangover).
Sick leave defines its topic as "paid time off", but I'm not sure that "pulling a sickie" necessarily implies claiming sick pay; it just means claiming illness as an excuse to not get fired for absence. (In-fact, students dodging school rather than work are also said to be "pulling a sickie"; getting the sick pay isn't the point.) That said, I'm sure many people do falsely claim sick pay, so maybe it's the best target.
"Sickie" is close enough to "sick leave" to not be immediately surprising to readers, but the problem is Sick leave doesn't actually mention falsely claiming sick leave, with the article currently only covering legitimately claiming it. There is a single passing mention of absenteeism, but it's in the context of noting that "presenteeism" (going to work when you are in-fact actually sick) is a bigger economic problem. I'm leaning soft redirect to Wiktionary, until relevant content is added somewhere. (That also seemed to be the direction the last RfD was heading, although it ultimately didn't reach consensus.) – Scyrme (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angry mob[edit]

Angry mob is an {{R with history}} that has targeted Crowd, Mob rule, and Mobbing during its existence as a redirect. Not too sure which one of these it should target ... or if the article hiding in the edit history should be restored ... but bringing it here for discussion to see if a consensus can be formed on this. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 11:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grace Warrior[edit]

Delete. Not sure we need a redirect to someone's non-notable child who isn't even discussed in the article. --woodensuperman 08:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the late retarget suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saens Peña Square[edit]

This was a re-direct from a hoax page that was created by a vandal only account that was turned into a re-direct in good faith. I removed the hoax contents from target. Re-direct can go now. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - searching online this appears it may be real, an alternate name for "Praça Saenz Peña" or "Praça Saens Peña". There is also a film with this title given as the English translation by IMDB ([10]). I'm unsure how to assess this, but of course with the content removed it is not a suitable redirect. Normally I'd say to send to AfD but the creator was blocked for not citing reliable sources and I'm unable to access the websites referenced even though the article was created just a few months ago. Deleting would also introduce attribution issues at the current target due to the merged content appearing in the edit history, so if deleted it may be necessary for revdeletion. Pinging @TimothyBlue: who merged the content. A7V2 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response This edit was part of a series of well disguised vandalism run. Have a look at Special:Diff/1143229167 and Special:Diff/1144034119 Those edits at first glance look legitimate. If you actually go and fact check, you'll find the links either dead; pull up a legitimate page that don't relate to anything that its intended to support and the information added was incorrect. I became aware of it when I noticed something was a little bit off when I started looking for other sources to support something that didn't make sense. So I checked the editor's other edits and turns out all their edits were of this nature. So, it's just better to void it all out. I believe it may have been an experiment by someone to see how long it takes for misinformation to be noticed or if anyone ever bother checking legitimate looking links. Graywalls (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wite[edit]

Per the links in Henry de Bracton and the definition at wikt:wite, this word has a distinct meaning exclusive from being a misspelling for the target; even then, as a misspelling, this redirect is ambiguous since Wight exists. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Disambiguate as proposed above. It's not appropriate to treat this as a misspelling when someone could plausibly be searching for a different topic by its proper, correctly spelled name. The idea that the misspelling is the primary topic is not persuasive. A misspelling isn't a topic to begin with, and searching online brings up Anglo-Saxon law, the Saint, and dictionary definitions for the word (as defined at Wiktionary) so even if it were a topic I don't see any evidence for it being primary. – Scyrme (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:CONTEST[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Contesting a deletion is not limited to WP:PROD only. Speedy and AfD deletions are also contested or appealed, and WP:DRV is the forum for that. But in terms of information available, I think WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review is one central point where the section and sub-section discuss contesting all kinds of deletions, including PROD, and suggest appropriate forums. I suggest retargeting to WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review.

I realize that non-deletion actions / closure outcomes can be also contested, but we already have WP:Appeal, WP:CHALLENGE and WP:CHALLENGECLOSE pointing to the non-deletion pages. Jay 💬 15:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I saw a notice about this RFD nomination on the PROD talk page and thought, "What does a contest have to do with Proposed deletion?" I didn't think of the word as a verb. Assuming I'm an ordinary person, there might be some confusion should folks drop this abbreviation into policy debates. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We do have WP:Contests for your fun kind of usage! Jay 💬 04:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Possibly disambiguate otherwise keep as a longstanding redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that CONTESTED is from 2009. The other two are from the 2022 RfD mentioned. Jay 💬 06:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moment (time)[edit]

r Incomplete disambiguation. Retarget to either the disambiguation page or Instant. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Instant, as I think that's clearly the primary topic. Duckmather (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Moment#Time as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- Tavix (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Moment#Time per Tavix. It's hard for me to see how Instant can be the primary topic when the word "moment" doesn't even appear at that target. A7V2 (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Moment#Time per Tavix. --Lenticel (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as is, with the hatnote. There are a highly unusual amount of pageviews for this unnatural search term, suggesting old links intending the moment (unit) page abound – for this is the previous title of the article for its entire existence. This is (almost, not really) the sort of 'weird' article which becomes popular due to being spotlighted externally – for evidence, there are 899 of these old links. That number includes 363 internal links, which will certainly explain the majority of the pageviews – but the backlinks will still dwarf the number of readers looking for something else, I reckon. The vast majority of readers who find their way to this redirect intend to see the current target. J947 † edits 11:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep, per J947. Another reasonable choice would be redirecting to Moment (disambiguation), but that would be worse for anyone following these external links, and no different for anyone looking for "moment in time" i.e. Instant (thanks to the hatnote). jlwoodwa (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Regarding old links, I think the vast majority were from navbar templates which I've now updated (something that should've been done anyway, to ensure the links bold properly). – Scyrme (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @J947: WhatLinksHere has now updated. Should take a few days for the pageviews to gather updated stats though. – Scyrme (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We should have this closed and come back in a month to see updated pageviews. I'm unsure whether there are bulk external links, but it seems a lot more harmful to misjudge and go with the retarget when if that assumption is true this is a little-used redirect anyway (if you know what I mean). J947 † edits 03:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have replaced the incoming link from Atom (time)‎ as well. Jay 💬 07:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep for now, per J947, along with Scyrme's updating of navbar templates. Can be renominated later after pageviews update. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep for now per the above. I am inclined to retarget to the dab section as incomplete disambiguation, but given the years that the unit article was at this title, let's see what traffic it's getting (without it being at Rfd) now that the internal links have been updated. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has momentum, but retarget collectively still has more support. One more try for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shafiullah Orakzai[edit]

This page was tagged as a CSD G6, a page made in error. But it wasn't obvious enough to me. Frankly though I don't see a connection between this page and the redirect target. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 7[edit]

Town of Somerset[edit]

Retarget to Somerset (disambiguation) - There are several entries on the dab page for municipalities called Somerset, many of which are probably considered towns. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Κάντιον[edit]

Delete per WP:RLOTE. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jesus ain't say that[edit]

Redirect to Omarosa Manigault Newman or (realistically) Delete - The quote may have been regarding Pence, but it was from Omarosa. However, I'm not convinced that it's a sufficiently notable quote to warrant a redirect, so deletion may be the better option. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Looking at the year to date pageviews it has gotten 4 hits. It has little to no value. PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Idiot in chief[edit]

Delete per WP:NPOV. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2015–16 Bangladesh Championship League[edit]

Declined speedy deletion, but I'm not sure what to do here. This is a page move redirect - evidently this league's championship which ran from November 2015 to January 2016 is referred to by sources as the 2014-15 league, for reasons which aren't clear to me. The league's following championship, 2016 Bangladesh Championship League, is evidently also known as the 2015-16 league (it ran from October 2016 - January 2017). This shouldn't be deleted because it's a {{R from move}}, but I don't know where it should target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of deleting the redirect please rename the 2016 Bangladesh Championship League article as 2015–16 Bangladesh Championship League since it's the correct name. FNH004 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - there is clearly something fishy going on with the related articles since the 2014–15 Bangladesh Championship League supposedly ran from November 2015 to January 2016 (one of the sources for the league table describes this as the 2015-16 league, [15]), and the article 2016 Bangladesh Championship League says it was called the "Bangladesh Championship League 2015–16" but ran from 2016 to 2017. I think this needs to be sorted out before worrying about any redirects. Pinging Jesse Viviano who appears to have done various pagemoves and histmerges in this topic area. A7V2 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The official logo clearly states that the league season was called the "2014-15 Bangladesh Championship League". Here are a few more articles referring to the league season by same name: [16] [17]. The source you are referring to is from the RSSSF and they named the season based on its duration, since thats what they normally do with all league seasons. FNH004 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles[edit]

Initially I was thinking of just ignoring it, but now I'm increasingly doubting its potential usefulness. This recently created redirect has zero incoming links (unlike titles like WikiProject Football, WikiProject Military history or WikiProject Biography, which have each tens of incoming links but are still red links), and its pageviews are quite low (other than the initial spike, most of the other hits were probably mine).

Eventually a line needs to be drawn between those cross-namespace redirects that are worth retaining (e.g. the "MOS:" shortcuts), and those that aren't (for example, a mainspace redirect to an archived talk page like Wikipedia/Archive 25). This redirect fits squarely into the latter camp. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal:Black Lives Matter[edit]

why do we have a portal link that redirects to userspace? lettherebedarklight晚安 17:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Combo Panda[edit]

Though Ryan's World did have a Combo Panda section when the redirect was created, that article no longer mentions Combo Panda at all. Redirects that lead to articles containing nothing at all about the redirect's particular subject are unhelpful for readers. If mentions of Combo Panda were removed for a good reason, then the redirect should be deleted. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sean O'Hara[edit]

The creation of this {{R from misspelling}} disrupted existing intentional redlinks to Sean O'Hara (the Australian gymnast). jlwoodwa (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Meets WP:RFD#KEEP #2: ...redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling... What would you suggest happen? Is there evidence that the gymnast is notable enough to have a standalone article created? They're linked from events in 2014, which they didnt seem to medal, nor was it the Olympics.—Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The redirect could be deleted, or a stub could be written if there's enough information, or it could be replaced with a disambiguation page, or there could be a hatnote on the target. Depending on which option is taken, existing links could be deleted, or a disambiguation added to keep them red (despite the fact that there's no other Sean O'Hara to be ambiguous with), or left unchanged. I don't see an obvious choice here – that's why I brought it to RfD. Also, this misspelling might not be frequent. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd recommend to follow the red link guideline. WP:REDLINK:

    Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable.

    If the gymnast isn't notable, the point seems moot about deleting the redirect, and the gymnast links can be deleted. —Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep for now: If and when the other person’s article is created, then we could decide whether hatnoting or removing the redirect is necessary. Agree with removing the redlinks. Fork99 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep for now per WP:RFD#K2 and remove the redlinks. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adult use[edit]

Adult use does not mean Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. Adults use things outside of the US and adults use many things other than cannabis. Ridiculous misnomer.

Failed CSD R3. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Searching online, "adult+use" brings up exclusively cannabis-related results for 10 pages on Google and Google News. Same was true for Bing and DuckDuckGo. Most results on Google/Bing/DDG were specific to the United States, but not all were. (eg. Switzerland, Europe, Australia)
Results on Google Scholar, however, appear to be predominantly in the general sense of "use by adults" of e-cigarretes, alcohol, prescription opioids, emergency department services, and so on, with some results related to adult use of cannabis. Results on Google Books were mixed with cannabis-related results appearing frequently in early pages and results becoming increasingly general; notably, many of the general uses were about tobacco.
It's clear that "adult use" has a particular meaning in relation to cannabis (legalisation) beyond just "use by adults". – Scyrme (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: I created this redirect because "adult use" is a euphemism for recreational cannabis that's recently come into vogue in US law. I think the best redirect target is probably Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States, but maybe there's a better one. Wikipedia has an article Recreational drug use, but no Recreational cannabis use, which would seem the most obvious target. —Kodiologist (t) 17:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete too vague, "adult use" can mean lots of things only adults can do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak keep per Scyrme. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete in opposition of Scyrme's point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Let's let both do their appropriate functions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My only point was that this has a specific meaning in relation to cannabis and that this term is widely used in this way, so the current choice wasn't arbitrary, random, or inexplicable. I haven't actually decided anything regarding what should be done about Adult use.
    Ordinarily search results like these would be taken as good evidence for a primary topic, but it's obvious why treating it that way would be surprising to many so idk.
    The only thing I'd suggest is that more specific redirects like adult use of cannabis, adult-use cannabis, adult-use marijuana etc. could be created and may be avoid some of the issues with this one. I'm not sure what the best target for them would be though; the current target of this redirect is US-centric but I'm not sure the term itself is exclusively restricted to the US (although it probably originated there).
    Regarding Wikipedia's own search results, the current target does not appear on the first page of results. The results that do appear are either unrelated or only tangentially relevant. – Scyrme (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as hopelessly vague. A7V2 (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Kodiologist: It seems the main article for cannabis use (both illicit and not) is Cannabis (drug), in contrast to Cannabis (which is about the plant itself). I think that might be the most appropriate destination due to its more global focus. What would you say to targeting the more specific "adult use" redirects I suggested to that article? – Scyrme (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That seems fine to me. I'd suggest keeping Adult use itself as well to help users who've seen the term and don't know what it means. As you can see from the other comments in this discussion, awareness of what it means as an idiom is not universal, which makes sense because it's a euphemism and obfuscation is part of the function of euphemism. —Kodiologist (t) 12:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untitled Rick and Michonne television series[edit]

Per WP:UFILM, the series is no longer untitled -- Alex_21 TALK 01:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ARHS ACT[edit]

Uncessary series of malformed redirects, adding state abbreviations to the Australian Railway Historical Society abbreviation. Propose deleting all. Jeistyphade (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As the creator, I oppose deletion of any of these redirects. These have all been in official and/or unofficial use to refer to the sub-divisions of this particular organisation. For example, the ARHS NSW website is arhsnsw.com.au. The bottom copyright notice of that website states 2022 ARHS NSW Division All Rights Reserved. Fork99 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A quick Google search of any of these also provides secondary sources which use the abbreviations mentioned.
    In addition, the disambiguation ARHS already links to Australian Railway Historical Society. Could you explain your rationale for what constitutes a “malformed redirect”? Fork99 (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    State abbreviations for Queensland and Victoria are Qld and Vic, not QLD and VIC. Jeistyphade (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While yes that is correct (officially), there are many of us that are not pedantic enough to remember that an abbreviation of a singular word usually results in the letters subsequent to the first letter being uncapitalised. But even then, that’s not necessarily correct for everything. For example, the US state of California does not get abbreviated to Ca but instead CA. Plus, when you’re typing into a search engine, such as Wikipedia’s, trying to look for the relevant article, I would imagine a lot of people would type their query like this: arhs vic. Who has the time or the brainpower to type in ARHS (Vic Division)? Fork99 (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Haha I even forgot the full stop (.) after “Vic”, to show how how cumbersome writing the entire name would be. And even then, if you were gonna search like that, why wouldn’t you just type out the full name of the organisation anyways? It’s fine to have these as redirects as well, as it can also help remove the possibility of someone thinking that the article doesn’t exist when they type ARHS NSW as an example, then writing an article and then finding out that one already exists, when someone patrolling realises an article on the topic already exists. Fork99 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Fork99 as not inaccurate, or refine to the Background section. J947 † edits 01:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Fork99's reasoning - well put, considering the variations of commonly used and trading names over time (over 50 years now) by the branches/divisions is such that any indicator that facilitates linking is worth keeping. JarrahTree 02:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete ARHS NSW as there is very little about the NSW branch specifically, and it is spread throughout the article. Refine the others to Australian Railway Historical Society#Background (or just keep) as they are all discussed. I don't see any issue with "VIC" or "QLD". A7V2 (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree with deleting NSW, the ARHS was initially founded in Sydney, NSW, and ultimately became its own division in its own right. If we need to expand the article to include more info about it, then by all means I will do that. Fork99 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mellon collection[edit]

Currently redirects to Paul Mellon, but his father Andrew Mellon also had a substantial art collection. I propose disambiguation. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 6[edit]

Ke Kou Ke Le[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete - Doesn't seem like a plausible search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cake box[edit]

Retarget to ? - No other specific forms of box redirect here so I imagine there should be a better target somewhere, I'm just not sure where. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

God Save the King-Emperor[edit]

Delete per below. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

God Save The King-Emperor[edit]

Delete - Never an official title. The Monarch's former role as Emperor/Empress of India was never even mentioned in the lyrics, and the anthem was still known as "God Save the King/Queen" in India. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National anthem of Tokelau[edit]

Retarget to Te Atua o Tokelau or Dabify - People searching for this are probably searching for the territorial anthem. But, at the very least God Save the King would not be the only national anthem of Tokelau as it is part of the Realm of New Zealand which has two anthems: God Save the King and God Defend New Zealand. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Abbot (martyr)[edit]

Target page describes William Knight and Henry Abbot, but no William Abbot. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radeon R800[edit]

Apparent failed crystal balling (per creating edit summary) - not mentioned at target. If this is deleted then the entry at R800 can be removed and R800 (CPU) promoted to the undisambiguated title * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Metric system baseball[edit]

Implausible joke redirect. Google search returns nothing. Has received 69 (nice!) pageviews in its whole existence, and only 2 the last 30 days likely due to a related RfD at Metric system Ostrich. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 20:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Range of Delairea odorata[edit]

Unnecessary redirect. Are we going to add "Range of x" redirects for every plant and animal? – bradv 23:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Refine to Delairea odorata#Habitat and distribution where this is discussed. A7V2 (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete This is not a type of redirect we need or want, and not a likely nor required search term (searching for any expression with this species name will get you to the species article in any case). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm neutral. This one isn't harmful as a sole redirect, and seems mildly helpful, but the use will be very low and mass-creating "Range of X" redirects seems like more of a net negative for the project. It's a matter of do we want to set the precedent that these should be deleted if they are created? I don't have a strong opinion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Switching to Refine to Delairea odorata#Habitat and distribution. We can discourage creation without deleting the ones that do exist, especially since they do serve a minor net positive. Mass creation would be bad and would clutter up things, but this isn't mass creation, this is one specific redirect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: in this case I lean towards deletion- we certainly don't need ultra-low-use "Range of x" redirects for every taxon- but for a few widely known taxa, this is a plausible search term. For example, I might lean towards keeping Range of African elephant or Range of poison ivy and so on. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refine per A7V2. This is one of those redirects where we shouldn't encourage the creation of because they have such low utility, but since it has been created we don't really have a good reason to delete because that utility is still positive. The article does clearly describe the range of Delairea odorata so it's not incorrect or misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete There could be a redirects for every section of every article, but I don't think that is a road we want to go down. Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refine per Tavix. J947 † edits 11:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. This is too specific to warrant a redirect, and I agree that it represents a Pandora's box. The best way to discourage creation is to delete the examples that set the precedent for further creation, not tolerate them until the problem has already grown.
    A search of "range of [binomial name]" invariably brings up the relevant article on the first page, usually as the first result (when the binomial name is also the article title, as is the case here). I would only lean towards keeping in cases where a species name is ambiguous with other topics, resulting in too many irrelevant search results. This is unlikely to ever be the case with binomial nomenclature, but perhaps it could be an issue with common names. – Scyrme (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What is "the problem"? J947 † edits 08:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      WP:PANDORA. Not sure how what I said wasn't clear. The more of these exist, the stronger the precedent for creating more; that is, the problem grows as the figurative Pandora's box opens more and more. Do you not agree that we shouldn't encourage the creation of these redirects? – Scyrme (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2023 (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, Jay 💬 07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep and Refine The range of Delairea odorata is discussed at the target, hence a redirect makes sense. I find the argument for deletion entirely unconvincing - if someone wants to spend their time creating more of these redirects them more power to them! * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vyacheslav Kolomiyets[edit]

Recently had to perform a page swap between pages due to subject mismatch. No evidence this person was ever called "Vyacheslav" nor is there evidence of a relative by this name. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom unless evidence of this being an alternate name can be found (the surname is also different but seemingly just a spelling variation so I don't have an issue with that part). A7V2 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopeh Incident[edit]

Consensus was previously to delete this. It redirects to list of reported UFO sightings. The photograph was previously on that list, but has been long-removed. I don't see any sources that can say much more about the photo beyond its existence. Rjjiii (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ZPI extension[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DeftPDF[edit]

No longer listed at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HTML padding[edit]

Not mentioned at target - this is a distinct concept that should not redirect here. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page handling[edit]

This concept is not specific to Adobe Acrobat. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete nothing to indicate that the term is specific the target and the target article doesn’t mention the term.--67.70.144.202 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page scaling[edit]

This concept is not specific to Adobe Acrobat. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete nothing to indicate that the term is specific the target and the target article doesn’t mention the term.--67.70.144.202 (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete until content is added to a relevant article. I considered whether paper size or page layout might work, and while they probably are the closest thing to a good target neither of them seems to have enough relevant material.
    Paper size does discuss scaling, but, as the article itself notes, multiple pages can be printed on a single side of paper depending on the scale of the page. The topics are related, but aren't quite the same thing.
    Page layout mentions the scale of text and images, but doesn't mention the scale of the entire page (despite the dimensions of a page being very relevant to the layout; ideally the article would mention this topic, but at present it doesn't).
    The similar phrase page size exists, but redirects to the unrelated Page (computer memory). – Scyrme (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: way too vague. Veverve (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

White Mass, Rose Mass, Gold Mass[edit]

The sections those targeted were deleted, there is no mention of the redirects in the article. Therefore, I propose deletion of all. Veverve (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Restore Content Somewhere and Retarget to That - This revision is where the information was removed. The information looks encyclopedic, but the comment where it was removed says "remove entire section as being unduly focused on matters in the USA (clearly). WP:BIAS is a thing, and I just don't see any redeeming feature here that would warrant such a long segment on this." I can see a point that this information may be systemic bias to include in the Mass in the Catholic Church article... but it does look like useful information that should exist SOMEWHERE on Wikipedia, perhaps in its own article. I propose restoring the information, perhaps in an article specifically stating it is about additional types of mass used only in the United States, and redirecting these there. Alternatively, simply restore it to the article and keep the redirects as is. There's no reason wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to tell a curious reader what a "White Mass" is, or a "Gold Mass", or a "Rose Mass", or any of these other special masses. Fieari (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also concur with the rationale for removal: those seem to be extremely USA-specific phenomenons that very few have ever heard of. Veverve (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please delete I've never heard of any of these; moreover (and certainly much more important): the missal doesn't have any content on that.--Medusahead (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore per Fieari. "I've never heard of it" is not a good reason to delete encyclopedic information. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - does seem as though the content could be restored at the current target. An alternative "somewhere" to put this content could be Red Mass or Red Mass#United States where these originally targeted. But without restoring this content anywhere then these should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restoring the content somewhere seems to be the consensus, at least at the moment, but we have nowhere to restore the content to as the original article seems unsuitable. There was a mention of Red Mass#United States (also one without the section link); thoughts on restoring the content there, or does anyone have any better ideas?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Metric system Ostrich[edit]

Created with edit summary "See Metric system baseball". Metric system baseball was created six minutes later as a redirect to cricket. Leaving aside the appropriateness of that redirect, there is a joke there that make some sense.

"Metric system Ostrich" doesn't make any sense. Ostriches don't occur in any countries that use imperial units. I get a single Google result for "metric system ostrich", where it appears in string of keywords including "ordering prefixes of the metric system ostrich fern vs cinnamon fern". Plantdrew (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old Earth (Dune)[edit]

Any content merged is no longer in use, and the section is gone. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep in some form as attribution is required. Article and merge. J947 † edits 22:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The merged content is no longer present in the article, so what do we need attribution for? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you please point me to the policy that stipulates that attribution is only necessary for the present revision? J947 † edits 21:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

911 War[edit]

While this could also redirect to War on Terror, I suggest deleting it to avoid an unhelpful link clogging up the search bar that could lead readers to an unwanted target. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. We don't have 9/11 war or similar, and this could possibly be confused with some sort of war involving 9-1-1 or other things listed at 911. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - We don't have 9/11 war because it's not a particularly common name for it, but it is a name that has been used for the War in Afghanistan. Dropping the slash makes plenty of sense. This is not an ambiguous topic, no war has ever started over the use of 9-1-1 or anything else listed at 911, so no confusion is really possible. Given the topic is unambiguous, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, I see no reason to delete. (I would support the existence of 9/11 war as well) Fieari (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak keep: The War in Afghanistan is definitely based on 9/11 with the AUMF being enacted just 7 days after 9/11. I had some concerns if this could be ambiguous with regards to the 1973 Chilean coup d'état which is referred to by the term "11 de Septiembre", but it does not seem like that is referred to by pretty much anywhere as the 9/11 war, so this seems like an unambiguous enough topic. TartarTorte 12:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak delete: The War on Terror is a plausible alternative target, but I find the slash in 9/11 to be essential; if anything, the redirect should be 9/11 War. Other 9/11 redirects have the slash and very few don't (911 attackers - 9/11 attackers, 911 denial - 9/11 denial, etc.), so I'd be wary having a redirect for 911 War; at least not without 9/11 War to accompany. It's a plausible search term though (WP:CHEAP), so this is a weak delete from me. 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If kept, I think creating redirects at 9/11 war and 9/11 War is a good idea. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass, Nuptial[edit]

Unhelpful, convoluted wording. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 5[edit]

Law & Order: New York[edit]

Retarget to Law & Order (franchise) - This is not the only Law & Order series to take place in New York. Plain Law & Order arguably has a better claim anyway. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This seems to be an alternate German name for SVU. I also found a usage in a 2010 Vulture article announcing the cancellation of original Law & Order, albeit somewhat informally. I suppose I could see this as a retronym for the New York-set series, which would support targeting the franchise, though most of them are still set in New York, so it doesn't seem like a very useful term. Deletion may be our best option. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 18[edit]

Retarget to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 18) or Delete - Not certain this is a plausible typo, but this is not the proper target either way. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Her Majesty the Queen[edit]

Retarget to The Queen - Per the previous RfD on Her Majesty The Queen which resulted in that being retarget to the former page. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Musique (artiste)[edit]

Non-English title was repeatedly created, but instead of salting, it was created and protected. Since it's a highly-implausible title, and it has only one usage in mainspace, I'd rather it deleted and salted. SWinxy (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stochastic heat equation[edit]

This does not seem to be described at the target. There is an explanation at Stochastic partial differential equation#Examples. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gaussian white noise[edit]

These should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why should these point to the same target? To me the design flaw is two endpoints: we should merge White noise and Gaussian noise in to Noise_(spectral_phenomenon), producing one strong article rather then three weak ones. And you get the redirect solved as well. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asura (video game character)[edit]

I'm not sure the current target is a good place to point these two. While the character in question is the main protagonist of Samurai Shodown 64: Warriors Rage and he appears in other games of that franchise as well, I'm not sure he's the primary topic for these terms. The first thing that came to my mind was Asura's Wrath, which I think might be a much better target but I'm not sure, since there are other video game characters with that name as well. Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 20:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

City (Georgia)[edit]

There are cities in the country too, but regardless, I don't think this is a useful redirect, so delete rather than disambiguate. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Leaning delete actually I think I'm neutral now because the only use I can think of for this redirect is to link details about Georgia's legal treatment of cities to the word "city" in an article that talks about a Georgia city. I don't think that's a good thing to be doing; too eggy. If you want to explain this stuff in a linking article, do it in visible text.
    That said, there's something that needs to be explained here. If I go to "what links here" I find, for example, Mount Vernon, Georgia, and if I search in wikitext for "Georgia (city)", it does not appear.
    So my best guess is there's some sort of template magic going on here. We should probably find out what it is, and get rid of it, because as I say above, that's not a good thing to be doing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's linked from Template:Montgomery County, Georgia, which also links Town (Georgia). --Pokechu22 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • That's it. I guess I don't mind it as much there. If you see a bluelink to "city" in ordinary article text you have a reasonable expectation that it points to city, and if information that would be relevant to readers is hidden behind the link, that's a bad thing. For the word "Cities" at the head of a list in a nav template, who knows. Still, that's no impediment to removing the redirect and piping directly in the template (note that even with the redirect, it would still need a pipe anyway, so the redirect doesn't save anything here). --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This redirect is used in around 20 articles (and that template), all concerning cities in the US state of Georgia. Its purpose is to lead the reader to the definition of a city in Georgia - because the definitions of 'city', 'town' , 'village' etc differ from state to state. There are similar redirects for most US states (e.g. Town (Connecticut), Village (New York)). Confusion with the country of Georgia is possible, but not likely, I think. If eliminating possible confusion is considered essential, it could be refined to "City (Georgia (US state))" or similar. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You really shouldn't do that, at least not in article text. It violates the least surprise principle. As I say above, I don't mind it as much in the navbox, but a pipe is sufficient there; the redirect is pointless. I think all the other articles that "use" it are actually just including that template, though I haven't checked that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This redirect, ahd the others like it, are used almost exclusively in infoboxes, where the heading for the settlement might be 'City' or 'Town' or 'Village' etc. No-one would be surprised to click on that and be taken to an explanation of the official definition of that term for a settlement in that state, Colonies Chris (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, I don't mind it as much in navboxes, but I also don't see why you need it there. It doesn't save a pipe, so why not just pipe where you want it to go? --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does save a tiny bit of typing when typing with the pipe trick, but the expanded version of that is saved, and I don't think that really is something that needs to be optimized for in a navbox. --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment as nom I see now the purpose of this redirect, and my apologies for not doing a better WP:BEFORE. But the risk is that someone incorrectly uses this in a template or article about a city in the country, or someone actually searching this (unlikely but plausible) wishes to learn about cities in the country. Same thing with Town (Georgia) (which targets town and I was not aware of). Note that most county templates for Georgia just link to City rather than use this redirect. I still lean delete I guess, as piped links can be used instead (as cumbersome as they may be). After all, links using this redirect still have to be piped anyway. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also, it could tempt editors to use it in article text, and that would usually be a bad thing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Redirects are preferred to piping in cases like this because it decouples the link from the target, and it doesn't require an editor to know where exactly the target is to be found. They can just write [[Village (Ohio)|Village]], for example, and the redirect does the rest. And if the target article were to be reorganised so the definition is moved elsewhere, only one redirect would need to change instead of hundreds of articles. Also, Town (Georgia) targets Town#United States. If there is a specific explanation somewhere for what constitutes a town in the state of Georgia, the redirect could be refined to go there instead, without needing to change potentially hundreds of articles. And why shouldn't an editor use it in article text? Colonies Chris (talk)
      • They shouldn't use it in article text because it would (usually) violate the least surprise principle. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • As I said above, no-one would be surprised by this redirect, whether in a navbox or article text. Imagine how it might be used - for example you might write 'Fitzgerald is a city in the US state of Georgia". No-one would click on that link unless they want clarification on what exactly is meant by the term 'city' in Georgia, and that's what they'd get. There's no surprise involved. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • OK, that's exactly the usage that I consider bad. When readers see "city" in blue, they're entitled to expect that it points to city. If there's other information about cities in Georgia specifically, the visible text doesn't give you enough to know that it's there. I very sharply disagree that "there's no surprise involved".
            On the other hand, I would not object to Fitzgerald is a [[city (Georgia)|city in the US state of Georgia]]. The difference is that no one expects "city in the US state of Georgia" to be the title of an article or a search term on its own, so the expectations are different. --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not at all. From the reader's point of view, either you know, or think you know, what a city is already, so you don't click the link, or you understand that 'city' is a variable concept, so you click to find out exactly what it means in this context. In fact, if the reader is familiar with our principle of not linking common terms, they will *expect* the link to not be a simple link to city. No surprise. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I still disagree with you very very sharply. Keep it simple; don't overload links unnecessarily. It's different, of course, with secondary meanings of an ambiguous term — an article about cheeses may have to link to quark. But that doesn't apply here; you're still talking about cities, but you're sending the reader somewhere other than city to get more information, without any warning that this is happening. A reader might want that information, but does not get adequate notice that the link points there.
      And in this particular case, it's totally unnecessary, because piping the entire phrase solves the problem neatly. --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far as I'm aware this redirect is only used in navboxes, so the question of piping a longer phrase doesn't currently arise. And even then it would be better to pipe the longer phrsse to the redirect, rather than directly to the target, for the reasons i've already explained. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(←) Here's a comparison. There is an article named Overtime (sports). However, in articles about ice hockey that link to 'overtime', it will probably be piped to the more specific Overtime (ice hockey). In articles about American football, the same text will be piped to Overtime (American football), which redirects to the football-specific section of the Overtime (sports) article. No reader is confused or surprised by this, because they expect to be taken to guidance that's specific to the context they're in. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Lean delete per Trovatore. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm actually neutral following the discussion. The navbox use seems OK to me and Colonies Chris has explained a reasonable rationale for keeping the target behind a redirect.
      For other uses, the main thing is that editors need to internalize WP:EGG. I'm afraid that not enough of them have (including Colonies Chris). But that's not a problem with the redirect itself. --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It's only used on the one navbox though. I think the best solution here is to created a piped link to the current target on the template. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It's used in the navboxes of about 20 cities in Georgia, and potentially could be used in many more, which currently just link to city. And I've already explained why a redirect is a much better choice than a piped link in this sort of case. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Navboxrugby[edit]

Unused template that redirects to Template:Navbox. It's implausible that an editor would want to get a navbox or would desire getting there using this template. SWinxy (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • delete, after 13 years, it's unlikely anyone is still looking for this one. Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

坦帕[edit]

Redirect in a language other than English that points to an article not directly related to the language. I'm suggesting deletion based on WP:RFOREIGN and point 8 of WP:R#DELETE. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mixed Latin and Greek/Cyrillic scripts, A[edit]

Red = Cyrillic; Pink = Greek

All are mixes of Latin + other scripts. Unlikely search terms. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ef6 tornado[edit]

There is no such thing as an "EF6 tornado" rating, nor is it mentioned on the target article. While there did exist an F6 tornado rating at one point in time (no longer recognized), an EF6 tornado rating does not exist. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - It is entirely plausible that someone would remember that an F6 tornado was a classification, and also that the F scale was changed to the EF scale, but not remember that EF doesn't go to 6. The chart will then inform them of their mistake. The actual lack of mention is actually providing the information that this hypothetical searcher needs. As such, this is a useful redirect. Fieari (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Fieari. A7V2 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crakow[edit]

Where should this target? Poulaine was just moved away from this title, and the hatnote at the top of it seems to be trying to imply that the city Krakow is the primary topic (or around the same level as the footwear). There's no Crakow (disambiguation), and I think hatnotes would handle this fine; I'm just not sure which article this should target. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ranch water[edit]

I came across this after reading a recent Slate article that mentioned multiple breweries making "ranch water (a cocktail typically made using tequila)". There is indeed such a product described at the target page, but it doesn't seem a good target if the cocktail doesn't necessarily use Topo Chico. The only other relevant usage I found is at Karbach Brewing Company, which claims a "Ranch Water Original". (Plenty of uses about water supplies for ranches, but I don't think we need to worry about that.) This seems like a good case for WP:REDLINK deletion. BDD (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • DAB This is the opposite of REDYES. As you say KBC also exists and thus search will not work. Additionally we do need to worry about water supplies for ranches. DAB these 2 with Farm water. — Invasive Spices (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:-[edit]

What's the point of title only containing hyphen redirecting to Wikipedia:Dashboard? Is this useful redirect? Is it plausible redirect? Vitaium (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak keep: It seems to have a fair amount of usage and my assumption is that the term dash being used for a hyphen is what leads to this going to the dashboard. It is a bit odd that for most of its existence, it was a redirect similar to MOS:HYPHEN, but it seems that since the target was changed to its current target back in 2021, it has gotten more usage. It seems to not be particularly harmful as is, because there's almost nothing linking to it referencing MOS:HYPHEN, which was its initial target. TartarTorte 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep because I use it haha. I've found it very quick to type. SWinxy (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep not seeing the harm, and I personally use it daily. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: the redirect is being used regularly. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LaLiga[edit]

"LaLiga" is the name of the organising body of the Spanish men's first and second divisions, as well as the top woman's division. This can be seen in official documents and promotional releases. The similar naming between the body and the divisions seems to sow confusion, but considering Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional correctly names "LaLiga" as an alternative name it is illogical for it to be a redirect to a different one. LaLiga should either be retargeted to Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional or turned into a disambiguation page. DatGuyTalkContribs 08:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I see your point, but I'm tempted to just keep this as is in spite of it being incorrect – the vast majority of readers searching this up want to access the current target. Not a football fan, but this is the sponsorship name of the league (LaLiga EA Sports), and how the (old?) logo would be read, which for many would be the only time they actually see the league name in writing. J947 † edits 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seems like a perfect place for a disambiguation page then. The logos of LaLiga and the two divisions are all very similar. DatGuyTalkContribs 12:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Organising body

    Organising body

  • First division

    First division

  • Second division

    Second division

In my opinion, the solution to the problem is being approached in the wrong way. LaLiga is the body/company that administers the First and Second Divisions in Spain. Therefore LaLiga should have its own page as it happened now. The error is in the name of the First Division. The current page "La Liga" should be renamed: "Primera División" or "Primera División de Fútbol Profesional" as it is popularly known. The page of the Second Division is called: "Segunda División" and not "La Liga 2". I think it was a mistake to call the popularly known "Primera División" "La Liga". When a team ascends to the First Division, the popular chants are to sing: "A primera oe, a primera oee.." the figure of LaLiga is never called. The day that the organization that administers the First Division is another with another commercial name what will be done? The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Теmplate:Rural localities in Oktyabrsky District, Kursk oblast[edit]

Mixed script, cross namespace redirect. The "Te" in "Template" is actually a Cyrillic Т and a Cyrillic е. This means that this redirect is actually in article space, cannot be transcluded and is unlikely to ever be used. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uber South Korea[edit]

Delete. The only mentions of South Korea at Uber are where it's included in a list of countries about which a simple observation is being made. Anyone looking for general information, rather than two arbitrary details, about Uber in South Korea will find nothing. Criterion 10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Largoplazo (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It is my (perhaps incorrect) understanding that Uber do not operate in South Korea, so perhaps retarget to Legality of ridesharing companies by jurisdiction#South Korea which discusses Uber's operations there. But as that section lacks any current information, perhaps better to delete. Current target is not suitable per nom. A7V2 (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes incorrect. However it appears their operations are very limited there and they operate more as a taxi. If something about this could be added to my proposed target that would be best but otherwise perhaps better to delete afterall. A7V2 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete A7V2's target would make sense if this were Uber in South Korea. "Uber South Korea" sounds like the name of a specific entity, and if an entity with that name does not exist, retargeting this somewhere is confusing guesswork. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have removed the bolding from my first comment as it perhaps gave the wrong impression. I don't necessarily agree with Pppery about my proposed retarget, as I don't agree that the wording necessarily implies a separate entity rather than simply a separate operation, which the vast majority of companies operating in multiple countries are to at least some extent (certainly it's not "confusing guesswork"). But I won't stand in the way of deletion, nor was that my intention with my above suggestion. A7V2 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian native snail[edit]

There are a couple thousand snail species native to Australia, and "Australian native snail" isn't used as a common name for this one species in particular. (It was formerly listed as such on the target page, which is presumably why this redirect was created, but the name was removed in 2020 with the reasoning "no evidence that this is a common name that was ever in use anywhere (original edit adding it unreferenced) and it may also create confusion by implying there is only one Australian native snail") Spizaetus (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded, I striked out my previous comment. Seems like a good target. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the retargeting suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of monsters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya![edit]

There are no monsters from Kirby: Right Back at Ya! on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep This is marked as R from merge, and has a history. It needs to be preserved for attribution purposes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Headbomb: All merged content was removed from the article a long time ago. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Generic list of monsters, none of this content is fit to merge or retain in the target article. It would be understandable if ANY of it were sourced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Per Headbomb. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment @Headbomb: @Tcr25: None of the merged content is currently in use. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore and send to WP:AFD per the above split consensus in order to give te content hiding in the history of this redirect a proper sendoff. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the redirect is inappropriate kept as-is due to a lack of monsters from Kirby: Right Back at Ya!. Because all merged content has been removed, there is no need to keep it for attribution purposes. The list does not stand a chance at AfD, restoring it for the purposes of deletion is a pointless exercise in bureaucracy. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment – I can't find any evidence that a merge took place. If it did, whether later deleted or not, then as far as I know attribution is necessary. J947 † edits 23:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree with J947 that no merge took place. The R from merge tag was added by Pokechu22 probably erroneously, in 2022, for a redirect (BLAR) that happened in 2007. The BLARer TTN did a merge to List of characters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya! 3 minutes after the BLAR, but that content came from a different article Kirby: Right Back At Ya! Guest Characters. That might explain if Pokechu22 thought it was a merge-and-redirect and not a BLAR. The BLAR comment was ... remove unneeded plot summaries. Do to the "villain of the week" nature of the show, this stuff would easily be covered in the episode list. That is one editor's opinion. Restore and AfD to discuss what happens to the really big content. I wouldn't say it was unsourced. It had a source, and assume the whole of the list was based off that source. Jay 💬 09:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe what happened was I went through all redirects that should have gone to List of Kirby characters but instead went to Kirby (series) due to List of Kirby characters temporarily being redirected. There's a larger than normal quantity of those (Kirby: Right Back At Ya! Guest Characters, Kirby: Right Back at Ya! Minor Characters, Minor characters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya!, and List of characters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya!) due to some old moving before merging. While chasing that down, I must have also seen the longer history on List of monsters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya! and assumed it was also merged in some way, but it's possible that's incorrect. Note that the same moving happened at List of Demon Beasts/Monsters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya!; if the "List of monsters in Kirby" redirect is deleted that redirect should be deleted to. I have no opinion on this matter. --Pokechu22 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input and to close an old log page...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 4[edit]

DC Circuit[edit]

Suggest that this be retargeted back to its original target, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Anyone using the uppercase C is not looking for Direct current (WP:DIFFCAPS), and the current appeals court is the primary topic over the historical circuit court, the latter of which may be reached via a hatnote. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sum 41's sixth studio album[edit]

Red. doesn't exist for any other of the band's albums (or any other band's albums for that matter), meaning a similar red. would have to exist for EVERY album article; WP:PANDORA. In addition, it's very unlikely someone would look for 13 Voices with "Sum 41's 6th Studio Album". Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 19:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak keep - This was created as an article (in 2009, 7 years before the release of the current target), presumably actually about Screaming Bloody Murder (the fifth studio album), as it mentions the success of what is their 4th album (Underclass Hero), but at the time the article said it was the fifth ([25]). Ultimately this is a leftover of a bad BLAR by Timmeh 14 years ago where proper deletion procedures should have been used, but I don't see that any benefit comes from deleting this harmless redirect. A7V2 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linkin Park's fifth studio album[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Red. doesn't exist for any other of the band's albums (or any other band's albums for that matter), meaning a similar red. would have to exist for EVERY album article; WP:PANDORA. In addition, it's very unlikely someone would look for Living Things (Linkin Park album) with "Linkin Park's 5th Studio Album". Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 17:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - I was notified of this discussion because I believe I was the one who finally moved this article to its final article title back in the day and this redirect was auto-created afterwards. I wanted it deleted as early as 2014, but I was outvoted back then. Now or then, I don't think it was particularly likely search term. Certainly not now though - prior to this nom, its been averaging zero page views per day this month. Its simply not being used. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - There is no need for this. Was there ever a contest in which the fans got to vote on a name for it? A similar redirect exists for Five for Fighting's Slice album, the reason being that when the article was created, there was enough info to cover his 5th studio album, but no name had been announced as he held a vote in which the fans could vote on its title and whichever one won, would be chosen. Slice won, and so Five for Fighting's fifth studio album was moved to Slice (album) with a redirect appearing on the former. Much like the Linkin Park album, no one is going to explicitly search for Five for Fighting's fifth studio album. Both should be removed imo. Moline1 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as an unambiguous {{R from move}}. Not getting any use is not in itself a reason to delete. May be currently useless, but it also harmless, and given that the article was originally at this title, there is always the chance of breaking external links with deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What's the purpose of a redirect if not for it to be used? And so what if some links are broken? It's a multiplatinum album that's been out for almost a decade - people will easily know how to fix it. Not that I think there'd be much of that to begin with. Writing something like "Linkin Park's fifth studio album" is not common or any sort of standard. The music content area generally would write that sentiment as "Linkin Park's fifth studio album Living Things." Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From WP:R#SUPPRESS: "Not breaking links helps everyone". If we accept that this will break links (a bad thing), there must be a reason to do so, but in this case there isn't one. A7V2 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't accept that though. My stance is that I don't believe it's breaking links, because editors don't write prose with links like this. Why would someone's first mention of the album be a link to it without using its name? Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Links made outside Wikipedia, not internal links. J947 † edits 03:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't stress enough the implausibility of anyone anywhere linking to this redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here's evidence that it's actually occurred. Don't go shifting the goalposts now. J947 † edits 04:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your link isn't working for me, but regardless, literally zero mainspace articles that use this redirect on Wikipedia at least. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Mdewman6. No benefit comes from deleting, only potential harm due to this being the result of a page move. A7V2 (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was only at the prior title for a brief period almost a decade ago because an overzealous editor created the article prematurely before it had a name. There's nothing worth preserving here. It both conceptually, and in practice, is functionally useless. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Unused ≠ should be deleted. By rights it's an unhelpful redirect – but why must it be deleted? Two backlinks, and it being a possible (read: improbable) search term far outweigh the harm it causes. J947 † edits 08:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capital of Switzerland[edit]

The Capital of Switzerland isn't exclusively Bern, Bern is the administrative capital, whereas Lausanne is the judicial capital. I propose either deleting it or disambiguating it. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 13:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Disambiguate since it's a plausible search term. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Switzerland#Federal City: This probably best covers the topic of Switzerland's (lack of) Capital TartarTorte 16:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget per TartarTorte. That section explains that no city in Switzerland has the official status either of capital or of Federal City while also listing all the unofficial federal cities. That extra context seems more helpful than a disambiguation page that simply lists cities that might loosely (or mistakenly) be regarded as Switzerland's capital. – Scyrme (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Current target says Bern is the de facto capital of Switzerland. Googling "capital of switzerland" inevitably leads to dozens of sources stating Bern is the capital, including from the official Swiss broadcaster and the CIA. Retargeting would probably astonish most readers. A hatnote can be added pointing to the section noted by TartarTorte. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Astonish who? https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Capital_of_Switzerland The page averaged 14 views this month. Most of them have been me trying to get to this discussion. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 20:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Redirects are cheap, and, if someone finds them useful, they're useful. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What's the purpose of a redirect if not for it to be used? Writing something like "Capital of Switzerland" is not common or any sort of standard, and if it was, it would be piped. In addition, while yes, dozens of sources will pop up saying that Bern is the capital, Bern is right there on the search engine. It's the third result, so there's no need to open a new tab. Also, in accordance with WP:COSTLY#Some unneeded redirects, Bern can can easily be found with a search. It's semi-common knowledge already that Bern is the capital of Switzerland. The redirect is untrue and, to be frank, utterly useless. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 00:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is also a pretty valid solution. Switzerland isn't so much of a South Africa scenario where there are three capitals, but one where there is no official capital but Bern is largely treated as such. While the highest court is in Lausanne, it has not generally been referred to as the Judicial Capital of Switzerland in the same way that Bloemfontein is in South Africa. TartarTorte 20:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep I believe that nations had capital cities centuries before the idea of stating in a constitution or a law that such-and-such city is The Official Capital Of X came about. Bern is the center of governmental administration for Switzerland, which under the ordinary definition of the word makes Bern its capital. And in this case, there was an official pronouncment. Per [26], "Am 28. November 1848 wählten der National- und Ständerat die Stadt Bern als Bundessitz der Schweiz, sie wird jedoch nicht Haupt- sondern eben Bundesstadt genannt" ("On 28 November 1848, the lower and upper houses of the Federal Assembly selected Bern as the "Bundessitz" [federal seat] of Switzerland, it was however called the federal seat and not the Hauptstadt [capital]"). But, [:wikt:tomayto,_tomahto#English|tomayto, tomahto]: It is the official designated seat of the country's government. That's what "capital" means whether they use that word or another one. If Toyota started referring to all of its cars as "automobiles" in all of its English-language media, nobody would be arguing that the vehicles in question aren't cars.
Meanwhile, in cases where the judiciary happens to be located elsewhere—the connotation of "capital", in its ordinary sense, is the place out of which the government, the political entity are run. The judiciary doesn't run the government. Though some countries appear to have dubbed a separate place where their judiciary is based as the "judiciary capital" (I'm assuming—or has the naming of Pretoria as South Africa's "judiciary capital" never been more than a popular designation?), it really isn't a capital. Largoplazo (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Run Wild[edit]

"Run Wild" is the name of some random obscure song off of this 1980s album. This should either be a DAB page as their are a few songs and albums with this title. Cherrell410 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cherrell410: Since you're the one who proposed it, maybe you should make it into a disambiguation page...? Also, calling a song off an album that sold 12 million copies worldwide "random [and] obscure" is a bit funny. Ss112 07:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tia Lorentzen[edit]

No mention; I'm unable to determine why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OneRepublic's second album[edit]

Why does this exist? I clicked on this thinking that it was some onerepublic lore, but no, it's some dumb redirect. Cherrell410 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It exists as a result of a page-move, as can be seen from the history. Keep per WP:RFD#K4 since this was the title of the article for around 6 weeks, and is completely unambiguous. A7V2 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Table[edit]

Black Table

There is no use of Black Table in Table Mountain, the target of this redirect, only of Back Table. This redirect has only been viewed 11 times in the first half of 2023. There is a draft, Draft:Black Table in review, concerning a novel, that is, an unrelated topic. The novel draft is not ready for article space, but might be ready for article space in the near future, and review has called attention to this useless redirect. The alternative to deleting this redirect when the novel is accepted would be including a hatnote in the article about the novel, but that would be a link to a misspelled version of the name of the geographic feature. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anisochromis straussi[edit]

The redirect (referring to a species of fish, which is listed on Anisochromis) is almost unrelated to the target. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digmaan[edit]

Implausible WP:RLOTE from Tagalog, not mentioned in target. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 07:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Male unemployment[edit]

This subject is not specifically mentioned in the target article in a way where redirects such as these would be considered incredibly helpful; readers may be searching around the article looking for specific information about the subject to a point where they might just give up. In addition, the linked section does not exist. Of all these redirects, Male unemployment is a {{R from merge}}, but the only location in the target article where it is clear content has been merged is at Unemployment#21st century, But even then, the reader has to go about halfway through the section to find any of the merged content ... And even then, that portion of contact is not specifically for the subjects of these redirects. I understand that there's probably going to be a push to retain the Murch material for attribution purposes, but as redirects, these redirects are not necessarily helpful search terms. All in all, as search terms, the redirects should all be deleted; however, the edit history in Male unemployment may need to be moved elsewhere to a title that's a reasonable search term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Steel1943: This subject is specifically mentioned in this section of the target article. Should the redirects be retargeted to that section? Jarble (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refine/keep per Jarble. Search terms seem plausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...But refine where? The passage is in the middle of a section, so if the option is to redirect it to the section, it could be misleading since the reader would have to scroll down to find the subject which they are attempting to locate. New subsection header, maybe? (I think an anchor may be confusing in this case.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you click on the link provided by Jarble, it takes you to the relevant content. I see no confusion here. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refine per Jarble and Presidentman, though I agree a subheader needs to be added, as the lack of a proper title makes it confusing. CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the comments to refine tend weakish, the number of redirects under discussion that refer to slightly different topics, and how information on gendered unemployment can be found throughout the article, I think this merits an opportunity for some strengthening of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 03:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:NO![edit]

I understand why someone would go to WP:NO (which is in fact a disambiguation page) to find the Norway wikiproject; it's the country code for Norway. I find it highly unlikely that anyone would visit this redirect. Page info says only one person — probably me — has visited this redirect in the past 30 days, while WP:NO has had 45 people visit it within the past 30 days. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:NO as a suitable retargeting option; it doesn't violate any of WP:R#DELETE (unless you want to claim it violates WP:R#D8, which I'd contest). It does only get about half a view per month, and the only incoming wikilinks are related to this RFD, so there's no real usage here and I wouldn't object to deletion, but I don't think there's a policy-backed reason for deletion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Wikipedia:NO because of WP:CHEAP and the lack of a good reason to delete. However, I am not opposed to deletion because of its lack of usefulness. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal leave[edit]

Not sure if the current target is correct. For example, this redirect could also vaguely refer to Paid time off or Leave of absence. Deleting this redirect so that search results can provide assistance may be the best option here. (Also, there is a section at Major League Baseball transactions#Personal leave that seems to refer to a subject other than the current target of this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strich[edit]

Not explained at target. Maybe intended as a misspelling of Stritch, which is explained there, but that hardly seems helpful. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2000 Senior Bowl[edit]

Delete all – these redirects are misleading and don't serve a beneficial navigational purpose. They all go back to the parent article even though they should be standalone articles for an annual, historical college football bowl game. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 3[edit]

Mancession[edit]

Mentioned in the target article and has a reference, but not in a way that adequately defines the term and thus may be WP:NEO. Per the target article, the best target for this redirect may be Great Recession (the target of redirect 2008–2012 global recession); however, this redirect is not currently mentioned in Great Recession. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Great recession, alternative name used in multiple reliable sources ([30], [31], [32]). However, it can also be loosely applied to recessions that significantly affect men more than women ([33], etc.), hence a weak retarget. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Transitional work" and "Transitional job(s)"[edit]

Neither of these redirects' target articles contain the redirects' phrases or the word "transitional". Both target articles each include one instance of the word "transitions", but not necessarily in reference to "jobs" or "work". I've bundled these together due to their edit histories; about 15 years ago, these all essentially targeted the same place, but over time, editors and bots found a way to both have these redirects target different targets and leave editors scratching their heads trying to figure out how or why these terms would redirect readers to either of the current target articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Transitional work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 USSC ethics disclosures[edit]

This is an unlikely and misleading search term. The reference discussing "disclosures" at the target is from 2022, not 2023, so the specificity of the year makes this problematic and unhelpful. The section is about revelations of failures to disclose details from prior years that came to light more recently, and does not include information about ethical disclosures made in 2023 as this redirect would imply. The only content related to 2023 were the revelations about Clarence Thomas, which are described in more detail at Clarence Thomas#Nondisclosure of gifts, real estate sale, and wife's income. Finally, USSC is not a common initialism for the target, at least not as prevalent as SCOTUS. All of this combined makes this unlikely to be useful. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USSC isn't as common as SCOTUS but that doesn't mean its use can't be anticipated. I agree with the rest of your points. Largoplazo (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's certainly a valid initialism, but unlike SCOTUS, USSC is ambiguous. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a different USCC with ethics disclosures in 2023? You haven't nominated USSC for deletion but 2023 USSC ethics disclosures. – Invasive Spices (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment
Invasive Spices (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belte[edit]

Upon further investigation, all of these terms seem to be words from the Belter Creole language, which isn't even a "real" language to begin with. So I still think deletion would be best, as some terms can even be considered ambiguous with other non-related words. CycloneYoris talk! 23:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89–'90[edit]

Article was redirected because it failed both WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR. I did a bit of looking into, and I think this article faces deletion - as I cannot find any sources that would make the article notable. HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Should be a restore and send to WP:AFD situation per the nominator's own admission and the fact that the nominator WP:BLARed the article about a year ago. Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. HorrorLover555 (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore and Afd This was BLARed, restored, then BLARed again. The venue to resolve a contested bold BLAR is Afd. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD if desired. Inappropriate for the most recent BLARer to nominate for deletion here, the correct deletion procedure should be followed for an article. A7V2 (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD as the general procedure for contested BLARs. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lunye[edit]

Another made-up word created by the same editor who created Sowng (which I also nominated below). A web search only shows results about a surname, a song, and other results that have nothing to do with the article it targets. I therefore propose deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 21:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Similar to Sowng below, and may create confusion. ― Synpath 00:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great Sea-Centipede & Cetacean Centipede[edit]

Neither of these redirects are mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirects and the target articles subject unclear. In addition, both of these redirects formerly targeted Many-finned sea serpent, which was deleted per AFD in 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multi-headed dragon[edit]

Surprisingly enough, these concepts are not defined in the target article which identifies these concepts specifically. There are a few examples of multiple-headed dragons mentioned in the target article, in addition to one image of a multiple headed dragon being present in the target article, but I don't think that is enough to warrant these redirects targeting this page since there concepts are not specifically defined. In addition, there is an article with a subject that is probably the most related to these concepts, Polycephaly, but I did not see an appropriate place to retarget these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep where they are. These are plausible search terms, and while the target article may not discuss the concept specifically, readers who are redirected there might be expected to find the mentions that are there, and realize that there is no independent content under those titles as a result of the redirects. That may prompt editors to research the topic and write about it, either under "dragon" or under one of the redirects, which would be a good thing. I don't see any benefit to simply deleting the redirects. Conceivably readers might be looking for information on dragons in heraldry, or in fantastic literature (the Dungeons & Dragons version of Tiamat comes to mind), but "dragon" is probably the safest target unless someone wants to create an article under one of these titles. I don't think readers are as likely to be looking for polycephaly; that doesn't look like a good alternative to the present target or simply building an article out of one of the redirects. P Aculeius (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and potentially WP:REDYES/WP:RFD#D10. If we started with the assumption that we must have a redirect for everything someone can plausibly search then yes, the current target is best. However that is not the case. There is very little about multiheaded dragons specifically in Dragon, and the existence of these redirects creates the false impression that there is such specific discussion. Anyone searching this will certainly still find dragon, and may well be searching this after having already read dragon. A7V2 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Javanese Dragon[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. For the history of the redirect, it looks like this redirect was a stub article for about a day in 2012 prior to being merged (per this edit) into the target article; however, it does not look like there's anything in the target article that resembles what was in this redirect formerly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Suggest retargeting to Mythology of Indonesia. This article seems to have had useful content at the time of its creation, and the only justification I can see for its merging into "dragon" so soon after that is that it was quite short and in need of improvement. But since the subject isn't covered there, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be re-created by someone with more expertise in the subject, it might be best to target it to an appropriate alternative. I briefly looked for more specific articles having to do with Javanese religion/mythology, but didn't see anything involving dragons, although Mythology of Indonesia does mention dragons. Or it could be recreated with its former text, but that looks to be in need of considerable improvement, and the subject is far enough beyond my scope of knowledge that I'm not confident I could make it acceptable. But of course, articles don't need to be perfect, and there is no deadline for improving them. So restoring the pre-merger version would be my second choice. P Aculeius (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Having had a look into this, I think the reason it's hard to find much discussion of this is that it there is actually no such thing. I oppose the suggested target of Mythology of Indonesia since there is no discussion of dragons in Javanese mythology specifically, so someone searching this would not find anything useful. I am neutral between retargeting to Nāga#Indonesia (see the photos there for the dragon-like non-dragons; this appears to be what the original article was about) or restoring the original article. A7V2 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kutler Trophy[edit]

Unlikely misspelling of Kuter Trophy. Third party search results seem to return nothing with this misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unmentioned January 7, YYYY redirects[edit]

January 7 is not mentioned on these pages, so it seems like deletion would make sense. These 2003 and 2004 pages were originally articles, but their contents were merged into their respective targets back in 2008 per a centralized discussion and since the inclusion criteria on years pages has led to all the content that was merged in being removed, so I would argue that maintaining the page history for attribution, even with the merge, is unnecessary as none of the corresponding text exists anymore in the article. TartarTorte 14:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Attribution is always necessary. But thankfully there's a good target here – the appropriate Portal:Current events subpage. Which is where the information was actually merged anyway: compare Special:Permalink/72658135 with Portal:Current events/2003 January 7. J947 † edits 01:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That makes a ton of sense. I didn't realize they had been merged into the Portal:Current events for those days. Redirecting all to their appropriate P:CE targets works for me. TartarTorte 13:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TartarTorte: there's a whole lot of others of this sort. We should aim for a more solid consensus for this change here, see if it applies to even those dates that are mentioned (I think all should be retargeted), and get a bot to apply the retarget or someone happy to do so with AWB. Also, redirects from varied date formats (DMY, YMD) should be created as well as many redirects of this sort that are yet uncreated. I believe that adds up to ~23,500 edits. Thoughts? J947 † edits 02:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @J947, they're all pretty logical redirects and it does seem to serve the reader best to have them exist. I would support such a bot's existence. TartarTorte 13:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khaled Asiri[edit]

Khaled Asiri is not an alternative name to Khaled Al-Zylaeei. Nehme1499 12:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2018–19 Sydney Kings season[edit]

Would like the 2018–19 Sydney Kings season page to be deleted since the page hasn't been updated since it was created on 18 July 2018‎. It is only a redirect to the team page, it's unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextigers (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sowng[edit]

Seems to be a made-up word. A Google search only shows results from wiki mirrors, and as a typo for "song". No idea why it was created, and I do think deletion is best. CycloneYoris talk! 10:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1-7[edit]

The chances that the person looking up 1-7 is looking for this is extremely low. Would like a disambig to be created at this title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricciardo Best (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no need to bring this here for deletion. If there are other terms that apply, then just add them and turn it into a disambiguation page instead. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you don't need to bring it here unless it is contested. Hard to say if it would be at the moment. What other articles do you think this might be an ambiguous term for? I'm not really seeing any obvious candidates. Lithopsian (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there aren't any other obvious targets to make up a disambiguation page then it should just stay as a direct to the only target there is, Schweizer SGU 1-7. - Ahunt (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is to be disambiguated then it should be similar to 1/7 and 7/1. ― Synpath 18:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linintaw District[edit]

Seems to be some weird invention, I can't find any actual old or new name of the target district which looks similar to this (making this a plausible typo or such). Fram (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kumyks in the Turkvision Song Contest[edit]

Bringing additional redirects to RfD which were not covered in previous RfD which gained consensus to delete this series (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 25#Xinjiang in the Turkvision Song Contest); all articles fail WP:GNG (WP:SIGCOV) and similar articles related to this contest have gone through AfD recently and show precedence for failure to warrant standalone articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science fiction as thought experiment[edit]

While the target article about a novel discusses how this novel is a thought experiment, the concept represented by the redirect is much broader and should have its own article, or redirect to a broader treatment not limited to a single novel. Ping[ User:TompaDompa, User:Daranios, User:Jclemens in case one of them would have an idea for a better redirect target. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ps. That redirect also has a see also to another redirect, fiction as thought experiment, but that one seems a bit better, target-wise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No opinion but thanks for the ping. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep for now: Without having searched I agree that this concept should go way beyond the one novel where it is linked. On the other hand, the target describes exactly what I would have thought to find as the basis of an article on the concept. So it's better than nothing, and the redirect should be kept until someone finds the energy to expand it/spin it out into the article the concept deserves. Daranios (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strongly weak keep. I like the idea of redirecting to a FA that touches on the topic. Alternatively, there is the most stifling sentence at Thought experiment#Uses, but a retarget limits this redirect's use as a category member. Red link potential very slim, but the search results aren't terrible so deletion wouldn't be all too terrible. J947 † edits 05:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of BL drama[edit]

"BL" is ambiguous anyway, but the current date-limited target is inappropriate. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The article (before redirect) was merged into its current target, and redirect should be retained for attribution history for authorship of merged content. Schazjmd (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete on List of BL drama
Weak delete on List of BL dramas
"BL" is too ambiguous. If consensus is keep, I then suggest refine to just the whole article. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 23:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BL on its own is too ambiguous and the 2010–2015 date range seems very arbitrary. 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a clearer consensus, and to close an old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Either delete or restore and send to AfD(?). While I'd lean towards BL being sufficiently disambiguated by 'drama' the target essentially does not list what most people would think of as Boys' Love. For example, calling Law & Order or Borgia BL is easily a surprise. The date range is way too specific for this redirect as well. As for the original list, it was largely specific to Thailand and wasn't exactly well sourced? Pretty sure the merge decision was flawed when it went to AfD. Moreover, the content from that list isn't at the target anymore and one entry is at the 2016-2019 date range. Not sure what the best procedure for this would be, either delete or restore and send to AfD. ― Synpath 17:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sociomusicological research methods[edit]

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

Anne Kristol[edit]

Redirecting spouses to their husbands is ... just no Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete This would be fine if there were information of substance about her in the article about her husband. But there's no more reason to have this redirect only to find that she's his wife and is also the daughter of William Kristol than there is to redirect it instead to William Kristol, which gives no information about her beyond the fact of her being his daughter and also the wife of Matthew Continetti. So there isn't even a clear single target, even if either of them were a useful one. Largoplazo (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per Largoplazo. A7V2 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak keep at whichever of the two targets (it doesn't really matter – this one says her middle name; the other one details her mother. I'd probably prefer Bill Kristol#Personal life) because all that deletion does is directs the reader to a search page which says the same thing as a redirect does, only in a more roundabout manner. The directness slightly outweighs the detail here. J947 † edits 01:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep, although neither article mentions the exact name as the redirect term (making the search a bit harder). External search results are all about her marriage to Matthew Continetti. Also, her twitter handle and name is Anne K. Continetti. The target may be shifted in future depending on how much info an article has. Jay 💬 07:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep if she isn't notable in her own right this seems reasonable since she is mentioned in the article about her husband. No objection to changing it to her father instead, but since they contain essentially the same information about her there isn't much difference. Hut 8.5 17:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tailspin (cocktail)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10#Tailspin (cocktail)

Russian bond[edit]

Russian bond(s) just refers to bonds backed by the Russian government, whether pre-Revolution or post-USSR. They're briefly mentioned at Economy of Russia, but not to a degree likely to satisfy a reader searching for this term. I'm thus leaning towards deletion to allow for internal search results and as WP:REDYES over redirection to that page signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete WP:EGG Dronebogus (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on set indexifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Set indexing sounds good to me. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as too vague to be of any use without a good discussion of the general topic. I'm actually partial to the definition of "James Bond stories set in Russia". -- Tavix (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time due to still being somewhat split in consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Set index of the different Russian government bonds as suggested above. Maybe that can eventually be expanded into a broad-concept article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete and make Russian bonds (or List of Russian bonds) a set index. That way, the reader who searches up this specific, ambiguous term (though it is more likely to refer to monetary bonds), is faced with search results that comprise the set index and some James Bond articles to follow. Best solution IMO. J947 † edits 02:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mostly clearing the old log. A draft of the set index, or creation of J947's proposal would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A7V2 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imitation City[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, and apparently not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep and add to target - A quick google search shows that it is

    An early 1987 cyberpunk adventure game created by Jiro Ishii, who later went on to direct 428: Shibuya Scramble in 2008 and Time Travelers in 2012.

    "Imitation City (game)". Giant Bomb. Retrieved June 25, 2023. So it is verifiable that it exists, but is not in the target. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools:     See reply to Steel1943 below. (talk, contribs) 15:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even then, it would be inappropriate to add the subject of the redirect to the target since this subject is a game that may be of the target genre, but the subject of this redirect is not wholly represented of the target subject. This seems like a WP:REDLINK situation, considering that adding the subject of this redirect to the target is like having a notable actor's entire description in the article Actor without there being an article for the notable actor, which does not make sense. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then retarget and add to List of graphic adventure games. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 00:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Adding it there may be okay, but probably not retargeting the redirect there. As it stands, the list of incoming redirects towards List of graphic adventure games includes no such related redirects that are name(s) of a game. It may be preferable to delete this redirect per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vitaium (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public transport in Canterbury[edit]

As with Public transport in Hamilton (which I sent to RfD under "NotReallySoroka", my old username), this is an ambiguous redirect. Although Christchurch is indeed part of New Zealand's Canterbury region, there are many Canterburys in the world; in fact, the on-wiki primary topic for "Canterbury" is Canterbury, Britain.

Therefore, I propose that we disambiguate this redirect with links such as - but not limited to - Canterbury#Transport (for Canterbury, Britain), Canterbury, New South Wales#Transport, and Canterbury, New Brunswick#Infrastructure (which is de facto a section on the former village's transportation). Thank you. Silcox (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Fixed link 05:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vitaium (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2[edit]

International Insider[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Someone searching for information on these terms will not be able to find what they are looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of Jay's proposal to retarget International Insider.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 21:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First-person adventure[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10#First-person adventure

Galatan[edit]

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

Green Day Greatest Hits[edit]

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

More redirects from nicknames of U.S. presidents[edit]

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

Hit Parade Italia[edit]

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

Fosna[edit]

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

Wikipedia:[edit]

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

Definitive solution to the counterfeit coin problem[edit]

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

Minister of Helth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 9#Minister of Helth

Civil unrest in France[edit]

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

Linkem Group[edit]

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

Mika Aarnikka[edit]

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

Mohamed Sherif (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

The current redirect for this article is about a football player who was born in 1996, not 1994, and so this redirect should be deleted. Ben5218 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Per the nominated redirect's edit history, this redirect was created as a {{R from move}} with its former contents being moved to Mohamed Sherif (footballer, born 1993). Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like the situation is that amidst a history of shenanigans, there are two footballers who weren't born in 1994 but some people think they are, there's an unexplained move that could have been lost in the history of this article, and there are two dab pages (Muhammed Sharif), one of which is questionable. Bearing that in mind, there ain't a consensus yet...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Saragarhi (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 9#Battle of Saragarhi (film)

July 1[edit]

2021 bow and arrow norway attack[edit]

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

Go on Country – Social Integration Party[edit]

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

Template:AlGoreSegmentsUnderInfoBox[edit]

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

Mohamed Mahzouz[edit]

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

Bakugan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 8#Bakugan

2023–24 Fortuna Düsseldorf season[edit]

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

2023–24 FC Augsburg season[edit]

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

2023–24 Stade de Reims season[edit]

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

The Silent Service (TV series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 8#The Silent Service (TV series)

Suri Cruise[edit]

The section no longer exists. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Should be retargeted then, the subject is still mentioned on the target page. Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete to allow for uninhibited search. Unless a specific section (and I mean specific, not just mentions) is included then I think it is better to allow for the search engine to do its job. There are multiple articles which mention her including Tom Cruise, and a section of the article Daniel Edwards who apparently named an artwork after her. A7V2 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: I added an anchor at Katie Holmes#Personal life. "Uninhibited search" is not a valid reason to delete a redirect. The search function will find the article and give readers an option for "search for pages containing _____". Grorp (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Allowing uninhibited search is a very commonly cited reason to delete a redirect. While not specifically mentioned anywhere, it is somewhat based on WP:RFD#D1, WP:XY, WP:RPURPOSE ("Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article") and WP:COMMONSENSE. In cases where it is arguable (by which I mean you don't have to agree) whether there is a single article which best describes the subtopic, then it certainly a valid option to suggest deletion on this grounds. A7V2 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete since it's an WP:XY issue without an article, since Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are both notable. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep (technically re-refine) per WP:XY, which states that redirects should be deleted if they could equally point to multiple targets (my emphasis added). The options are not equal here. Katie Holmes#Personal life says: The couple's daughter, Suri, was born on April 18, 2006, the first anniversary of their first date. The name "Suri", as reported by Cruise's press release, derives from the Persian word for "red rose". Tom Cruise#Relationships says: In April 2006, their daughter Suri was born. Katie Holmes' article has much more information, so it should redirect accordingly. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Refine per Tavix. If the created anchor has to be used, it may be placed at the 3rd paragraph of the section, otherwise I don't see the utility of an anchor that is intended for a section. Jay 💬 06:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstract vector space[edit]

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

Template:Fake[edit]

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

Akela Amador[edit]

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

Eminem (Marshall Bruce Mathers III)[edit]

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

El Muerto (2024 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 8#El Muerto (2024 film)

Sickie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 8#Sickie

Achillean[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft redirect

June 27[edit]

Chillmark[edit]

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

Uber South Korea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Uber South Korea

Australian native snail[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Australian native snail

Shooshing[edit]

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

Shootings[edit]

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

Whats the frequency kenneth[edit]

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

Axed[edit]

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

Wayne Carter[edit]

The word is nowhere in the target. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Looking at the edit summary of when the target of this was changed, and looking at IMDB[35] (not a reliable source), this is an alternate name for the director. I wasn't able to find anything more concrete however (but I didn't look for long). Note that this originally targeted Lil Wayne, whose birth name was "Dwayne Michael Carter Jr." so this is potentially a valid search term for him as well. I'm not sure. A7V2 (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to film credits, Harry Fraser (director) was billed as "Wayne Carter" in 1938's Songs and Saddles (available on YouTube.) It is correct, of course, that the alternative name "Wayne Carter" should be mentioned in the article delineating Harry Fraser. Taking that into account, if there is consensus for making Wayne Carter a redirect to Dwayne Michael "Lil Wayne" Carter Jr., I would not oppose it.
An alternative possibility might be the creation of a Wayne Carter disambiguation page that would list Wayne Carter, pseudonym for Harry Fraser (director) (1889–1974), as well as Wayne Carter, rapper Lil Wayne (born 1982), birth name Dwayne Michael Carter Jr. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • DABify, I don't see a reason either is a particularly likely target. Can be changed later if pageviews signify a primary topic for the term. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is a dab entry, then Wayne Carter needs to be mentioned in both pages per DABMENTION. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Dabbify per Roman Spinner and Skarmory, with necessary changes to the linked pages. The dab page could also include Wayne Carter Lake, a lake in Poinsett County, Arkansas. -- Visviva (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete and leave it to Search. It's not possible to build a valid disambiguation page with entries that don't actually mention the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per Shhh and Angus. A lot many results on enwiki on giving a search. No articles for any. Jay 💬 07:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget back to Lil Wayne. It's discussed in the Early life section that he uses "Wayne" instead of "Dwayne" because he's a junior, and nickname + surname is a plausible redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - as regards Lil Wayne, this is more easter egg than a likely search term. Given the possibility for confusion, search should be privileged over a technically-accurate trivia reference. signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Customs redirects[edit]

These should generally redirect to the same topic, either the authority over Customs within the country, or to "culture of"/etc. articles. Instead, we have a split between those two – articles like French customs target the Customs agency within the country, while articles like Singapore customs target "culture of" articles. (There's also the oddball Nigerian Customs, which appears to be a basketball team that is probably not the primary topic.)

There's a few related articles here that are relevant but were not included in the request because they should be fine at their current titles; Regional customs of France targets a section of Culture of France, several ethnic groups target either an article or section on their cultures (including Malay customs, which I did not include because Malay is not a demonym for Malaysia), and Customs of Barcelona (which may be ambiguous, but it doesn't really fit with this RFD).

I think capitalized "Customs" (as in French Customs) is fairly unambiguous per WP:SMALLDETAILS, but the uncapitalized "customs" and "Customs in [country]" seem ambiguous between the two usages. It's worth bringing this to RFD at least, because I have no idea where these should target.

(This was originally noted by me at WP:AFC/R after a redirect request by 123.51.107.94 to create French Customs and Customs in France as alternate versions of French customs.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are three factors which should be distinguished here:
  1. "customs" vs "Customs"; since Wikipedia can't distinguish case for first letter of a title, so if the title begins with the word, it should be assumed to be lowercase as in the context of internal links in article text that's how it's most likely to appear.
  2. "of" vs "in" (see post-relist comment)
  3. demonym (eg. French) vs country (eg. France)
For each of these, the former should preferably point to cultural customs while the latter should favour national agencies. I suggest they be given priority in the order above; so "customs of France" would point the cultural customs of France, despite naming a country not a demonym ("customs of the French"). If appropriate, {{redirect}} should be used to deal with ambiguity rather than creating a disambiguation page for every single country. The exception to that might be the Nigerian redirect, since there are three possible targets. – Scyrme (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If something is "Place Customs", like French Customs, I think it should redirect to border control: if you enter a capital letter, you probably want an official agency. If something is "Place customs", like French customs, I lean toward cultural practices. Maybe "Customs of place"/"Customs in place" could be disambiguation pages that cover both the official agency and the cultural practices? This assumes the place is a sovereign entity that can have its own customs service; because Wales isn't an independent country (and customs agencies didn't really exist when it was independent), we should leave Wales out of this. Finally, delete Nigeria, because the Nigeria Customs are a successful professional basketball team (the article says they were runners-up last year) in one of the world's most populous countries, and they definitely deserve their own article, not a redirect to their league. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Canada Customs is clearly unambiguous, since it says "Canada" and not "Canadian" ; also unambiguous is Customs Canada instead of "customs of Canada" or "customs in Canada". Various shippers call the Canadian customs agency as "Canada Customs" or "Customs Canada" on their websites, so those two should point to the government customs agency. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here's what I suggest: if the page takes the [denonym] Customs format, target it to Customs, but hatnote at the destination, e.g.:
"French Customs" redirects here. For cultural customs of France, see Culture of France.
If the redirect takes the [denonym] customs form, target to the culture article, but tag the target with a hatnote pointing to the relevant Customs article.
If the redirect takes the Customs in [country] form, I'd lean towards disambiguation, but with only two options that's a little weak.
Keep Canada Customs as unambiguous. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the only thing we disagree on is "customs in". While I agree that "in" is the most ambiguous, I think in this case it better to pick one target and use a hatnote, as that saves (encouraging) creating a large number of two-entry disambiguation page for (potentially) every pair of countries. Consistently using "of" and "in" for different targets avoids having to list more than two in a hatnote. So we'd at most only need:
"French Customs" and "Customs in France" redirect here. For cultural customs of France, see Culture of France.
Not a note with 3 redirects:
"French Customs", "Customs in France", and "Customs of France" redirect here. For cultural customs of France, see Culture of France.
It also provides a natural way to phrase symmetrical hatnotes which don't awkwardly repeat "customs of..." twice (like the 3 redirect note above). Instead, the target of "customs in France" could read "For cultural customs of France, see Culture of France" while the target of "customs of France" could read "For trade customs in France, see Directorate-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes". It might be better to use French Customs as a redirect for notes like the latter, as the full names of customs agencies can be rather long.
I suppose using a disambiguation page would also avoid these issues, but I think listing a pair of redirects is probably better than a large number of separate disambiguation pages. – Scyrme (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you redirect "in" and "of" to the same place, you wouldn't need to mention both in the hatnote. A reader who enters "customs of" and reaches an article with a "customs in" hatnote will understand, and vice versa. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep Welsh customs there isn't a customs agency at that level, so it isn't ambiguous. Hut 8.5 16:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've reconsidered; "of" and "in" should both be redirected to cultural customs, as this avoids creating a large number of two-entry disambiguation pages for every pairing, and also avoids messy hatnotes (per the IP's suggestions). My recommendations regarding c/C and demonym/country still stand, and are consistent with keeping Welsh customs and Canada Customs.
Searching online, the NCS appears to be the primary topic for Nigerian Customs. If needed, a separate disambiguation page can be created at Nigerian Customs (disambiguation) with a link to the mention at Nigerian Premier League (basketball) until Nigerian Customs (basketball) (redlinked in that article) is created. Applying my suggestions:
Retarget: French customs, customs in France, Swiss customs, and customs in Iran to cultural customs articles/sections; Nigerian Customs to Nigeria Customs Service.
Keep: French Customs, Canada Customs, Singapore Customs, and Welsh customs. – Scyrme (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Welsh customs as unambiguous. There's no ambiguous agency, and I probably shouldn't have included it in the RM, but I wasn't sure if I missed something in google search.
Keep Canada Customs, French Customs, and Singapore customs per Scyrme's suggestion. I think that's the best proposed solution for capitalized and uncapitalized "Customs/customs" forms. A hatnote is probably necessary for these three.
Retarget Nigerian Customs → Nigeria Customs Service, French customs → Culture of France, Swiss customs → Culture of Switzerland per Scyrme. A hatnote is probably necessary for these three.
I think the main ambiguity remains with the "Customs in" forms. I could still be swayed to either side on them; the discussion has yet to sway me, and as such I'm neutral on Customs in Iran and Customs in France. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Apply general rule: lowercase c customs means culture, Capital C Customs means border control, except when the capital is the first letter of the article, then assume it is the lowercase version. Do this across the board. Fieari (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iron(III) carbonate[edit]

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

Sum 41's sixth studio album[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Sum 41's sixth studio album

Soul metal[edit]

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

Linkin Park's fifth studio album[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Linkin Park's fifth studio album

Linkin park 3[edit]

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

Capital of the United States[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)Reply[reply]

Adult use[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 7#Adult use

Capital of Switzerland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Capital of Switzerland

Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 9#Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor

Range of Delairea odorata[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 6#Range of Delairea odorata

Warehouse Point Trolley Museum[edit]

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

Pediawiki[edit]

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

Democratic planning[edit]

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

Redirects to Mud (disambiguation)[edit]

Not mentioned in target. (Note that the target was now moved to multi-user dungeon.) Either it should be deleted entirely or restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now see that MUSH and MUSHclient are not the same thing. MUSHclient is a See also at MUSH. Both MUSHclient and Comparison of MUD clients were pages with significant content, and MXP (computing) to a lesser extent, that were BLARd. I would suggest to restore and take to AfD. Jay 💬 18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist for closing an old log page and to seek further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete all - while there's a lot of history in these pages in terms of volume, I think they have WP:SNOW chance at Afd. signed, Rosguill talk 05:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chümoukedima–Dimapur[edit]

This is an WP:XY now that there are two separate districts. The metro area doesn't cover the previously combined district. Could redirect to Dimapur district or Naga Hills District, British India provided it is explained well. Could also redirect to a line connecting the two regions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist for further input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - per Tavix, and as a WP:REDYES case; the coverage at Nagaland suggests that these two cities now form a combined area that may well be notable. signed, Rosguill talk 05:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 26[edit]

British NVC Community M23 Juncus subnodulosus-Cirsium palustre fen-meadow[edit]

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

Job loss[edit]

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

Mancession[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3#Mancession

Male unemployment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Male unemployment

Disoccupation[edit]

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

Out of work[edit]

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

Employment creation[edit]

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

Work relief program[edit]

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

"Transitional work" and "Transitional job(s)"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3#"Transitional work" and "Transitional job(s)"

Leave entitlement[edit]

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

Personal leave[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Personal leave

Strich[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Strich

Peter Benjamin[edit]

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

Adria (region)[edit]

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

Racially motivated abuse of Native Americans in the United States[edit]

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

Twelve Tribes in Czech Republic[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NCT[edit]

I suggest dabifying this redirect. The shortcut utilizes the Wikipedia namespace shortcut, but its current target is a category. This shortcut is linked to a small number of pages:

Potential dab entries includes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) (NCT), Wikipedia:Notability comparison test (NCT), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) (NCT, short for NCThe ✗plicit 01:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talks of the current target, and suggested dab entry pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist due to the late retarget suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 09:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tamburo charleston[edit]

No affinity to Italian, unless explained in the article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a native Italian term, but musical terminology frequently uses Italian. Some musicians may coin new terms using Italian, even though they may neither be Italian, nor are the terms common (or used at all) by Italians. "Tamburo charleston" refers to a drum kit. I personally have never seen this term until tonight; I came across while revising an article about a work which utilized music by Dmitri Shostakovich. Apparently, "tamburo charleston" was often used by composers such as Shostakovich, Matvei Blanter, and Rodion Shchedrin, among others. For the latter two I have no citations, but for the Shostakovich it's in the list of instruments for the 2001 New Collected Works edition of the Suite for Variety Orchestra No. 1.[1] — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. I don't understand the nomination statement, which does not refer to any ground for deletion that I am familiar with. I would lean slightly keep based on CurryTime7-24's helpful explanation, but it's not clear to me (as a musical ignoramus) whether this redirect-without-mention actually provides any value to the reader. If it does not, then it should be deleted. -- Visviva (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Visviva: AngusWOOF may be referring to WP:RFOREIGN by stating that the redirect term is Italian. Jay 💬 08:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! That does make sense. But if I'm understanding things correctly this isn't "really" an Italian phrase, but a (fairly rare) English-language technical musical term, so RFOREIGN wouldn't apply. -- Visviva (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - it's not defined anywhere on Wikipedia, and while it clearly is a (rare?) term of art, the available reference attested by CurryTime doesn't leave me confident that we've really narrowed down whether this means a specific kind of drum or drum kit vs drums more generally. `signed, Rosguill talk 00:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is definitely a term for a drum kit, specifically one outfitted with a high-hat. Again, this term was unfamiliar to me until May. That it is an exceptionally rare term (in English, at least) does not mean it doesn't exist. It does and is used in a composition by Dmitri Shostakovich, one of the most often-performed composers of the 20th century. The term appears in the score for the Suite for Variety Orchestra No. 1, which is one of his most popular works; André Rieu's recording of one of its movements became an international bestseller, made the sales charts in the Netherlands, and ended up being featured in the soundtrack for Eyes Wide Shut. The redirect should be kept, at least in order to save some other hapless Shostakovich enthusiast the trouble of having to do some serious digging as to just what exactly a "tamburo Charleston" is. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per Rosguill, unless CurryTime7-24 would like to add information about it to some article. Jay 💬 06:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep and tag as {{R without mention}}. Eventually there will be information on it. Jay 💬 10:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Revisit if the French article is deleted as unsourced per Rosguill. Jay 💬 02:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just noting that I don't have any plan of nominating that article for deletion as I am entirely unfamiliar with their deletion procedures; the only cross-project deletion stuff I dare touch are hoaxes and spam. signed, Rosguill talk 05:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: the term "Charleston" for the same is also listed among the instruments for Shostakovich's Orango.[2] There's also a French Wikipedia article for the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurryTime7-24 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The French Wikipedia article is unsourced. I'm still not convinced that we've nailed down whether this term means "hi-hat", "drum kit w/ hi-hat", or something more idiosyncratic. That the current usage seems entirely limited to Shostakovich and adaptations of his work further raises concerns of neologism. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Current usage is not limited to Shostakovich, although my examples are because his music is within my field of expertise. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of mention. If someone searches this term we need to be able to provide a definition of what it means. Otherwise this redirect will lead to confusion or disappointment, as demonstrated by Rosguill's query. -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shostakovich, Dmitri; Atovmyan, Levon (2001). Yakubov, Manashir (ed.). Dmitri Shostakovich: New Collected Works. IInd Series: Orchestra Compositions. 33rd Volume: Suite for Variety Stage Orchestra. Moscow: DSCH Publishers. p. 6.
  2. ^ McBurney, Gerard (March 2023). "Shostakovich: Work List" (PDF). Boosey & Hawkes. p. 90. Retrieved June 17, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus; relist to clear day's log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yahoo! Inc.[edit]

Retargeted from Yahoo (disambiguation) in March by @Rhain:. Either it should be changed back or Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present) should be moved to the undisambiguated title. Conifer (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple suggested targets - the original target Yahoo! and the previous target Yahoo (disambiguation).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't think the change of target after 17 years was for no reason. The new incarnation page of 2017–present was already created in 2017, and the change of target in 2021 was past due. And when it was retargeted (instead of a move), it was not opposed. Only in 2022, after an year, did CookieMonster755 try to change it back to Yahoo!, but only for a brief minute, before settling on the dab page. I agree with the nom that Rhain's retarget to the current incarnation has to be fixed. I would prefer the move from Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present) to Yahoo! Inc., but will leave that to WP:RM. For now revert target to Yahoo! per Visviva. Although it has a link to the parent company only in the Infobox, and not in the lead or body (unfortunately), it provides more specific disambiguation for the company, than Yahoo (disambiguation) does. Also note that Yahoo! Inc (without the dot) redirects to the dab, so if the outcome of this RfD is different from the dotless version, that may be changed accordingly. Jay 💬 10:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus and pseudo-procedural relist to clear the day's log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Struck off in favour of the refined dab. Jay 💬 05:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Yahoo (disambiguation). With the way things are currently setup in terms of articles and titles, the most appropriate target for this ambiguous base name is a disambiguation page where it is disambiguated. Including the "inc." means the company, not the brand. For those seeking the brand, disambiguation is the way to go. If that proves unsatisfactory, then we're talking about WP:RM. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Yahoo (disambiguation). It's unambiguously ambiguous. So, if we're not up for choosing a primary use, then this title should point to the disambiguation page so that incoming links can be flagged as needing repair.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 06:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Yahoo (disambiguation)#Companies, which I just carved out from the existing "other uses" section and should address the issue of editors finding the dab page uninformative for this title. signed, Rosguill talk 04:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Yahoo (disambiguation)#Companies per Rosguill; this term is ambiguous enough that I think the DAB is the best target. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 22[edit]

Ayyad[edit]

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

Staatliche Museeun[edit]

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

Minister of Helth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 2#Minister of Helth

Akela Amador[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 1#Akela Amador

Salem R Rajendran[edit]

"Salem [North]" is the constituency that R. Rajendran (DMK politician) represents. It is not a part of his name. It would be like if Richmond Rishi Sunak existed as a redirect. However, this redirect contains significant pre-merge history, that is probably needed for proper attribution. So, I'm not sure what should be done with it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I strongly oppose burying edit history in talk space. The edit history is article content, not discussions, and would therefore misclassify these edits in the wrong namespace. -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - This is an implausible search term but is ultimately harmless, and should be kept due to the merge. I don't see any benefit that comes from moving this, and a harm that comes from moving without leaving a redirect (since it would break links left in edit summaries, for example). A7V2 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Salem R Rajendran was the original article that has the longer edit history, it would have been nicer for it to have been merged the other way. That's still doable by history merging the pre-14 May 2022‎ edits from Salem R Rajendran to R. Rajendran (DMK politician). It would leave out three "article" edits though—adding a merge to tag, cleaning the infobox, adding a dmy dates tag, and then the merge itself—so I'm not sure how others would feel about that change. Even if that was done, we'd still have to house the rest of those edits somewhere (R. Rajendran (Salem North politician) makes sense to me.) Also note the existence of Draft:Salem R Rajendran. -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agree with Tavix. Jay 💬 14:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. There's no reason to delete – it's a harmless redirect, and given an article was created at this title, it seems to be a somewhat viable search term (it's getting a couple of pageviews a month). There's also attribution concerns – those could be solved by a history merge, but when the action taken doesn't change even if a history merge is performed, it's outside RFD's scope. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or move edit history (where?) without leaving redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moment (time)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 8#Moment (time)

World War II/Infobox[edit]

Not useful search terms. However, they contain useful edit history; if they are not deleted, they probably need to be moved without leaving a redirect elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on World War II/Infobox.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep or histmerge for World War II/Infobox. I don't see the benefit in deleting it (it seems to be useful inasmuch as its deletion will break incoming links from older discussions, and I weakly oppose deletion on those grounds), but if we do, a histmerge is going to be required for attribution sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-tailed hawk (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • History merge the /Edited Text redirect and then delete it. Weak keep the /Infobox title as the least-bad solution. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move per Graham to Talk:World War II/Infobox2 (since we already have an Infobox talk subpage) and Talk:World War II/Edited Text. A histmerge will only convolute the page history. This is from 2001 when we were still trying to figure out how to move pages and maintain history, the histmerge will be like rewriting history literally! Jay 💬 06:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for disucssion of Jay's move suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Move to the talk namespace. A history merge is not appropriate here because the history of this redirect was never a part of the main article - it was a standalone notes page for holding material that had been removed. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep World War II/Infobox as is, as has relevant edit history for its corresponding talk page and means the standard article bar links to WWII as expected. Move World War II/Edited Text to Talk:World War II/Edited Text as there is no benefit to it remaining in mainspace. Moving doesn't seem to break any links as far as I can see. J947 † edits 02:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not against a move here, but some of the suggestions do not respect namespaces. World War II/Edited Text is okay in the talk namespace, it's basically notes for the main article which is one of the uses of that namespace. However, I prefer 64.229's history merge suggestion better given there is no extant significant parallel histories. If World War II/Infobox is to be moved, it needs to be to the Template namespace because that is where infoboxes are housed. May I suggest Template:World War II infobox? -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day. (Wow, I forgot all about this thing ... I was the nominator...)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Histmerge World War II/Edited Text, Keep World War II/Infobox. Per that /GA1 RFD (I don't feel like searching for it), I don't think there's a valid reason to remove World War II/Infobox from mainspace, as there is a talk page there and clicking "Article" will take you to the WWII article. 64 makes a good point on the Edited Text article; the only content related human edit after 2001 is the one converting the page into a redirect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our Lord[edit]

Vey ambiguous. I think this should be either DABified or deleted. Veverve (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Too vague. Even when considering only religious interpretations, the title "Lord" isn't unique to Jesus or the Abrahamic God more broadly. In Hindu contexts, "lord" often translates the honorific "shri", and devotees frequently refer to "Lord Shiva", "Lord Krishna", and such in English sources. Without knowing the faith of the reader, there's no way to know what "our" means. While Lord covers many interpretations, someone searching for "our" Lord is probably expecting information particular to their faith. – Scyrme (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retarget to Lord - "Our Lord" is not only religious but can be temporal in nature when referring to a sovereign or feudal lord. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such lords are historical, and are not likely to be referred to as "our" lord today. While the UK still has lords, they are typicaly referred to as "his", as in "his lordship", not "our". – Scyrme (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does a pronoun fall within the scope of acceptable variation for a disambiguation page? – Scyrme (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some have WP:DABCOMBINEd them before. It's up to our judgment as a consensus-seeking process whether to do this or not. "My Lord is lord of Chartres" "Our Lord is lord of Chartres" "The Lord is lord of Chartres" "Your Lord is lord of Chartres" "Their Lord is lord of Chartres" -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Delete: overly vague: Our Lord could mean pretty much anything from a feudal lord to a deity, and would refer to different things in different contexts or locations. The page does get weak but steady pageviews, and I'd be okay with retargeting to Lord. Lord (disambiguation) isn't an ideal target; it includes items such as bands, books, and locations, which I don't think could be conceivably referred to as "Our Lord". Edward-Woodrow (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's currently linked in 3 articles: Roman Catholic Diocese of Bonfim where it should be piped to Jesus; Sanctuary of Maria Santissima dell'Alto where it is adjacent to a link to Jesus and should therefore be unlinked; and NOAAS George B. Kelez where it is probably best taken as a generic reference to God. Just looking for the phrase (not currently linked), the first 100 search results include 93 references to Jesus, 3 to Allah, 1 to Buddha, and only 3 (Hansard, treason and Al-Andalus) to "our Lord the King" or "our Lord the Sultan" – and in the latter cases the phrase "our Lord" should never be linked. So I think keep the target as "God". – Fayenatic London 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak delete. There doesn't seem to an appropriate, non-astonishing option here. Lord, God, Lord (disambiguation) and God (disambiguation) are reasonable targets in the abstract but unlikely to be helpful to a user who is coming from what are (per Fayenatic's helpful research) the overwhelmingly most common uses of this phrase on-wiki, which relate specifically to Jesus or God in Christianity. On the other hand the fact that this is not used exclusively for the Christian deity (and undoubtedly EN Wikipedia's comparatively poor coverage of non-Christian religions is distorting the numbers here somewhat) means that retargeting to either of those articles would be inappropriate. Dabification could be a good solution here, but I have a hard time imagining exactly what a good disambiguation page for the phrase "Our Lord" would look like. There seem to be no great options, but having nothing at all here seems like the option that will least disserve the reader. -- Visviva (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Lord (disambiguation) as with The Lord, but tag with possibilities as separate disambiguation if there are songs, books, or other media titles. Compare with Milord (disambiguation). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Jesus as the primary topic and hatnote to Lord which covers all the other contexts. Also see this from the Reference desk archives. Jay 💬 16:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think numbers should be the only factor, given that Jesus being "our" (that is, humanity's) Lord isn't an uncontroversial point of view. – Scyrme (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I had seen your earlier comment too, about other religions. Is it an assumption that it can be controversial, or do you know it is controversial? Jay 💬 17:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's a major point of disagreement between Christians and Muslims; in Islam God (Allah) alone is the Lord (Rabb), not Jesus (Isa). (eg. this book which equates the view that Jesus is the Lord with blasphemy.) On Twitter it's not difficult to find statements spontaneously responding to "our Lord" with "not my Lord" from atheists (eg), muslims (eg), Jewish people (eg), etc. – Scyrme (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would say the emphasis is on Our in the redirect under discussion. The opposition you talk about is about using "our" for all of humanity, but not on how Christians use it. We have moved on from using AD to the neutral CE. Are we looking at making enwiki politically correct by ignoring what Christians refer to as Our Lord? Jay 💬 15:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    but not on how Christians use it The whole premise of Christianity is that Christ is everyone's saviour (Salvator Mundi, saviour of the world); it absolutely is how Christians use it, that's why I mentioned it.
    The comparison to the AD/CE matter is a stretch. This is 1 redirect, not the written text in hundreds of thousands of pages. Additionally, while BC/AD dating is frequently used by everyone regardless of their personal beliefs, using "Our Lord" to refer to Jesus is exclusively a Christian practice reflecting an exclusively Christian point of view. The suggestions here aren't ignoring what Christians refer to, they're just also considering what other people might mean. Christians are not a global majority, so other perspectives are not implausible and warrant consideration; something determining a primary topic from Google search results does not do.
    Framing this as a dispute over "political correctness" is just bizarre. No-one here is pushing a political point of view. – Scyrme (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Lord (disambiguation), as this is a plausible search term, and is a potentially sensitive enough topic that disambiguation is preferrable to identifying a primary from Google search results. signed, Rosguill talk 00:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the sake of a clearer consensus, if this isn't deleted this retarget would be my second preference. I'd prefer a redirect to a disambiguation page over one to Lord, as if this text gets linked in an article it would be more helpful to encourage it to be piped to a specific target rather than for it to send readers to Lord, given that it's more likely someone intends to link God or Jesus than to Lords in general, even if Lord does also cover "Lord" in religious contexts. – Scyrme (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just delete. Lord (disambiguation) is unhelpful. Keeping as is is unhelpful – most are looking for Jesus. Even though Jesus is the primary topic, you can understand just how peeved (rightly) Muslims or Buddhists would be upon this being assumed to refer to one figure in particular, that isn't of their religion. Perhaps disambiguate at this title, but what would one include? Wherever you put the inclusion barrier for "Our Lord"s, people will be unhappy. To delete and make the reader search up a more specific term is the safe solution. J947 † edits 02:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Don't mind Tamzin's idea, but it's potentially a lot of clicks. J947 † edits 01:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Okay, here's an idea out of left field: Someone searching this is probably looking for a deity they worship, or that some entity they've interacted with worships. We can't guess which, but we can help them find what they're looking for. Retarget to Lists of deities. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Many deities are not commonly called "Our Lord", so there'd be a lot of noise to sort and that's after having to pick a list to browse through. In some cases, the reader might have to navigate through a list of a list of list eg. From List of deities by classification through Lists of deities by cultural sphere to a third list. Lord § Religion has a more relevant list which narrows things down considerably.
    That said, I think targeting a disambiguation page would be better than either. I don't think set indexes like Lists of deities bring up a "review link" warning notification, and links to article sections definitely don't. The notification discourages using Our Lord as an internal link, thereby enocuraging link transparency; precise links would get readers where they're supposed to go directly without having to choose from a list at all. If readers searches it directly the disambiguation page puts them 1 click away from the list at Lord, so even in that scenario it's no worse than (and in some cases better than) Lists of deities.
    Lists of deities might also be a bit suprising since, unlike Lord (disambiguation), it doesn't actually use the word "Lord" anywhere and its formated as "lists of deities" rather than a "lists of titles held by deities" or "lists of epithets of deities". Someone might be confused why it doesn't go somewhere more specific, at least. – Scyrme (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tamzin: Do you have a second preference? – Scyrme (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Lord (disambiguation), since this is an ambiguous variant of Lord. Maybe could be coupled with a slight restructuring of the DAB page to put the most obvious entries closer to the top, like maybe

    Lord is a general title denoting deference applied to a male person of authority, religious or political, or a deity.

    Lord (especially in variants such as The Lord and Our Lord) also often refers to:

    Lord or The Lord may also refer to:

    A bit nonstandard (with an intentional MOS:DABONE violation), but sometimes that kind of approach is needed for complex DABs.
    Beyond that, I would support any other outcome over God or Jesus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Jesus per Jay and Fay's research. This is a title of Jesus (eg: Apostles' Creed) and is primarily used in that context. -- Tavix (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Our God Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Lord (disambiguation) per Tamzin's suggestion. Sometimes, the best approach is WP:IAR, and I think this is one of those cases – I can imagine people typing in Lord the same way they'd type in Our Lord looking for their own deity, and the DAB page should reflect that. Granted, this is leaving RFD territory... Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crimea river[edit]

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

Crymea[edit]

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

Crymea river[edit]

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

2023–24 Stade Brestois 29 season[edit]

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

Eminem (Marshall Bruce Mathers III)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 1#Eminem (Marshall Bruce Mathers III)

Leggo muvvey[edit]

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

Public transport in Hamilton[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1164591864"