Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)

Administrator instructions

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussionEdit

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

The guiding principles of RfDEdit

  • 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


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 deletingEdit

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 criteria G10 and G3 may apply.)
  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 "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may also apply unless if the redirect from the main article namespace points to the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, and Portal: namespaces.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deletingEdit

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.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  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. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirectsEdit

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. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore 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. ClimategateClimatic 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 notesEdit

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 discussionEdit

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.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current listEdit

May 15Edit

Rosemary BurnettEdit

the target page Glasgow (Scottish Parliament electoral region) does not mention Rosemary Burnett. She was second on the Greens Party's "list" for the Glasgow region in 2007, but a reader who is redirected to Glasgow (Scottish Parliament electoral region) will have their time wasted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Law for the Vlachs of Cetina (1436)Edit

Cross-namespace redirect Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: @Super Ψ Dro: Why not tag it with {{Db-r2}}? ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know about that deletion rule. Do I add the template or it doesn't matter now? Super Ψ Dro 14:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  Done: I've added {{db-r2}}. JavaHurricane 15:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Voiture trolleyEdit

Other than in the hatnote, "Voiture trolley" is not mentioned in the article. Without a properly sourced mention, this is ambiguous and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Portsmouth CouncilEdit

Some readers may wish to visit Portsmouth City Council in the UK or Portsmouth, New Hampshire's city council instead. Maybe the redirect should be replaced with a disambiguation page instead. twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 11:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Caiman (Star Fox)Edit

This Androssian lieutenant used to have an article in 2005 from May to August, until it was redirected to List of minor characters in the Star Fox series back when the target was at that title. However, since his section was removed in September 2006, he hasn't been mentioned for years at the target, and the article about the only game he appeared at the time, Star Fox 64, doesn't mention him (nor does Star Fox Zero, the only other game where he appears), so I'd prefer deletion here, but I'm opened to being swayed otherwise. Regards, SONIC678 07:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Minor characters associated with QuidditchEdit

Minor Harry Potter Characters associated with Quidditch has nothing to do with Dumbledore's Army. This redirect should be deleted unless a suitable retarget can be found which talks about the topic of the redirect. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Deleted per nom. Dumbledore's Army is neither about minor character nor about character necessarily related to Quidditch. —El Millo (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This used to be an article before being unilaterally redirected. It shouldn't be deleted as that would mean an article is deleted without discussion on its merits. J947messageedits 03:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

TyriumEdit

Not mentoned anywhere on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Tyrium was first listed in Chemical symbol by Spangineer in 2005 here as a suggested name for neodymium. The entry was removed from the list in 2016 by an IP here. If this can be confirmed as an early proposed name of the element then it should be kept as a redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep following further research. This seems to be an alternative name for Neodymium proposed by John and Gordon Marks in a postscript of a paper where they proposed an alternative presentation for the periodic table. The only copy of the original 1994 paper I can find is here, I'm not sure which journal this was published in. A later paper by the brothers published in Found Chem in 2010 doesn't mention the alternative nomenclature. Still, seems a valid redirect. Also see here and here. Polyamorph (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Marks brothers nomenclature seems not used seriously by anyone else in scholarship (not even by themselves in their 2010 paper, except niton for radon). Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
You are right. And if it isn't mentioned in Neodymium then it is a bit pointless. But it is a real thing which is why I suggested there is no harm in keeping it. But I'm a bit meh about it so have changed my !vote to weak keep. Polyamorph (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep since Tyrium was indeed suggested as a name for Neodymium per the different references provided by Polyamorph. Jay (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Kobe JonesEdit

There is no need for this redirect (and potentially stops this page from being filled out if need be) Debartolo2917 (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. The redirect can always be boldly turned into an article once he plays a regulation game. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 14:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Lists of Serbian saintsEdit

Only concerns the saints of the Serbian Orthodox Church, not all Serbian saints, so these redirects should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Fixed incorrectly formatted nominations, and tagged redirects which didn't have an RfD tag. CycloneYoris talk! 02:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The articles were moved by the nominator without discussion. While I may agree with the new page title, those are reasonable redirects, and virtually all Serbian saints are those canonized by the Serbian Orthodox Church. There's no policy-based reason for deletion. No such user (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Vyond redirectsEdit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ohohohohohohoh! That's it! Ground these redirects for 27610693649276 years (aka Delete). These are a popular type of Grounded video using Vyond, but they don't seem to be notable enough. Dominicmgm (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

May 14Edit

Boston "terror" blastsEdit

Not only do the added quotes make this implausible, it also seems to be a use of WP:SCAREQUOTES. Dominicmgm (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Jamie Jones (musician)Edit

This is a questionable redirect. Jamie Jones (DJ) is not a musician. There is a Draft:Jamie Jones (musician), which is being reviewed. In my judgment as a reviewer, it has more than a 50% chance of surviving an AFD, and should be accepted, but this redirect needs to be replaced with hatnotes between the two Jamie Jones articles. Please delete this redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Robert McClenon, if you are wanting the draft to take this redirect's place (which it should) then go over to WP:RMTR. J947messageedits 02:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Comment' to User:J947 - I respectfully disagree. Technical moves are for non-contentious moves, e.g., to upgrade from a redirect to an article. This is a controversial move, because the existing redirect is wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

PUHEdit

Airport code is PAH; PUH seems to have been a code for Pochutla Airport[1]. Peter James (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Pop"Edit

Implausible search term and unnecessary redirect with the quotations. Anarchyte (talkwork) 17:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Refine to Pop#Arts, entertainment, and media, where there are several entries such as albums or songs that are often referred to using quotation marks. J947messageedits 18:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment either leave it as is or delete, do not refine. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete So non-standard that it's a bad precedent to set. PamD 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the quotation marks could be regarded as part of the title of something here (as "Heroes" and "Couples" are). Peter James (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Makura eigyōEdit

Not mentioned at the target, delete per WP:RLOTE unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per Rosguill. At the time the redirect was created, its creator had just added info on Makura eigyō to the target article. The content was removed twice, once by me. I did not find the content to be relevant, and the other remover thought that it might be but that it was hard to tell due to the broken English. If anyone wants to view what the Makura eigyō content looked like, here's a diff. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Descent(Blade: The Series episode)Edit

Created with a typo and there is already Descent (Blade: The Series episode). Gonnym (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- dylx 16:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

MJ (singer)Edit

Unlikely search term. As the stats show, this usually doesn't get any hits, and it's not hard to see why - who would type in "MJ" and then disambiguate it if they didn't know how to get to Michael Jackson's article? I wouldn't really mind, though, except MJ (South Korean singer) is an actual page with hundreds of views a day. Thus, there's really no benefit to having this incomplete DAB hanging around. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Note this wasn't properly tagged. I tagged it at 08:09, 30 April 2021. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, then move the South Korean singer to MJ (singer) leaving a hatnote to Michael Jackson. As an American, if I saw "MJ (singer)" my first thought would be Michael Jackson, but that doesn't supersede a notable singer who actually has that stage name. The hatnote should clear up any confusion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    An WP:RM would be needed for the South Korean singer (though my !vote below might apply to that case also)—Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to MJ#People. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to MJ#People. Titles with parenthetical disambiguation generally should not still be ambiguous.—Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete and create RM for the South Korean singer per AllegedlyHuman. Vaticidalprophet 13:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move MJ (South Korean singer) to this title and hatnote Michael Jackson. There is no other singer primarily mononymously know as "MJ". BD2412 T 15:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Articles titles should be WP:CONCISE, which it isn't if it's still ambiguous and needs a hatnote to Michael Jackson. A WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, e.g. if the title was plain "MJ", would be an exception for CONCISE.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Move per BD2412. MB 14:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete and move MJ (South Korean singer) to this title. It's nearly impossible for people to intentionally type "MJ (singer)" in the search box in attempt to find the article about Michael Jackson. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Not everyone is an American pop music fan to know that MJ's full name that they "should" instead be typing.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Michael Jackson is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC even if people aren't using this redirect IMO. Retarget to MJ#People as second choice. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Move MJ (singer) to this title per AllegedlyHuman and BD2412. -- dylx 16:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Substr quickEdit

Obsolete template redirect - we don’t do long/fast/slow variants of every template any more. User:GKFXtalk 11:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, contains history that I'm inclined to keep. Harmless after all. J947messageedits 04:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment probably should be transwikied to the Templates Wikia -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      • If this is only wanted for its page history and not useful as a redirect, we should probably remove the redirect and put {{historical}} on it like Template:Qif. User:GKFXtalk 07:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is old pre-lua code. There is no significant history, nor can this piece of code even be copyrighted or need attribution. --Gonnym (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Str sub old/anyEdit

Unused template redirect User:GKFXtalk 11:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, contains history that I'm inclined to keep. Harmless after all. J947messageedits 04:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment probably should be transwikied to the Templates Wikia -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      • If this is only wanted for its page history and not useful as a redirect, we should probably remove the redirect and put {{historical}} on it like Template:Qif. User:GKFXtalk 07:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is old pre-lua code. There is no significant history, nor can this piece of code even be copyrighted or need attribution. --Gonnym (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

G70 Shooting BrakeEdit

Not a useful redirect, especially without the company name included. For example, "911 Targa" does not redirect to the Porsche's page. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Twitter crashEdit

Current target does not seem to be the primary topic at all, rather searching produces a large number of mentions in the context of service outages for Twitter. Hog Farm Talk 04:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Current target is particularly inappropriate since the section title is wrong; there's nothing about a flash crash in the citation. And no more appropriate target suggests itself. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The retargeting suggested below is fine too. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Twitter#Outages, which covers the behaviour of the site during a server outage. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per the ip. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per the IP. -- dylx 16:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per the last three votes Zai (💬📝⚡️) 22:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

PuffballsUnitedEdit

None of the other Among Us developers have redirects. Also, Puffballs was notable for creating the Henry Stickmin series ten years before Among Us was released. I don't see how this redirect is useful.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


May 13Edit

KWDR (FM)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moot

K272EDEdit

Translator broadcasts at 102.3 FM, so a redirect to 93.5 FM makes no sense. Translators are not listed in radio station lists by frequency, and no article exists for the parent station, so no suitable target exists. Therefore this redirect should be deleted. Tdl1060 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to article KWDR (FM), which just appeared. Delete. I tried to find a valid target at WT:WikiProject Radio Stations#K272ED but I don't think there is one. Certes (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The previous redlink to the parent station, KWDR (FM), has also been redirected to 93.5 FM. I hope that this is an isolated one-off thing, rather than a concerted effort to eliminate redlinks in this manner. Mlaffs (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Yep, I'll go for retarget now too. Mlaffs (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to KWDR (FM), a new article where this is mentioned. MB 22:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to KWDR (FM), as this article has been created. --DrChuck68 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ferencvárosi TC (women)Edit

Per WP:RED, delete redirect to encourage article creation Seany91 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I think it would be better to start a stub article at that title and then link it to the parent article, rather than leaving a red link. (And if you do choose to start an article, then further action is not needed at RfD.) The owner of all ✌️ 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article currently also mentions women's teams. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, to encourage creation of a standalone article. GiantSnowman 15:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Svea RikeEdit

Delete or change scope of target.

The target article concerns the game also known as Svea Rike III, which is an entirely different game from Svea Rike I and II. It is therefore not a good redirect target for these two redirects. Either these redirects should be deleted, or the target article should be renamed and broadened in scope to include the entire Svea Rike series instead of only its third instalment. Rua (mew) 08:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting for further consideration of the (weak) retarget proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget Svea Rike should be retargeted to Svealand or made a disambiguation page as Svea rike is an old name for Sweden, mentioned in Svealand, Swedes (Germanic tribe) and elsewhere. TSventon (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate "Svea Rike" per TSventon -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

WWAFAWDWG?Edit

per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_25#WWAFAWDWG -- dylx 17:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill, Daybeers, MaranoFan, AngusWOOF, and Rubbish computer: pinging users who participated in the previous discussion. -- dylx 12:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per the previous consensus. The addition of a question mark does not make a significant difference. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. A google news search shows a few sites using this acronym to refer to the album, the version without the question mark seems to have been used as a twitter hashtag to promote the album, and it doesn't seem to be ambiguous with anything else. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Mostly fanmade acronym that is of no encyclopedic significance, not mentioned at target.--NØ 12:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Bucharest summitEdit

Many summits of many different organizations have occured in Bucharest. There's no reason to redirect this page to this article and there's not really any better option for a target article. I think this redirect should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 20:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. All mentions of Bucharest summit (even without mentioning the year) in Wikipedia refer to the 2008 summit. Jay (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The 2008 summit is the clear primary topic on Google. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

George FanEdit

Per WP:XY readers could equally be searching for others games he has been involved in like Octogeddon.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Cute newsEdit

This was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 4 arrived at a consensus to relist the RfD because most participants in the previous discussion apparently didn't recognize that this is a redirect from a misspelling, not a joke. What should be examined here is whether such a redirect is useful. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete again. Typo template redirects should not exist. We don't want Wikitext filled with typos. Typo redirects are for the purpose of navigation by readers, not for use by experienced editors. Editors should preview to make sure they haven't made any typos - if they don't, then that's their issue, redirects to clean up the one-in-a-million typo are completely unnecessary when it will be corrected by the next person who views the page. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible, unused and pointless per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#Template:Ctie book, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cite jorunal and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute book. Such misspellings should be corrected at source not via redirect to prevent confusion (reason for deletion #2) and avoid the risk of making it unreasonably difficult (reason for deletion #1) for bots, automated systems and searches to deal effectively with templated citations. DrKay (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have explained at multiple forums how this template is useful for readers (it displays a rendered citation instead of an ugly red link), which satisfies guideline #5 at WP:R#KEEP. The plausibility of this typo is easily demonstrated by its appearance in this report of redlinked templates. Template redirects from typos are easily and regularly fixed by bots and gnomes, which is why there are often zero transclusions.
    The guiding principles of RFD say Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept. I have demonstrated that this template redirect meets the guidelines listed there (namely, it is a likely misspelling, and it is useful), so either the people arguing for "Delete" without citing equally valid consensus guideline text should have a very high bar to get over, or the guiding principles or guidelines need to be changed.
    If this template is to be deleted, that means that the guideline text at WP:R#DELETE, and WP:R#KEEP, as well as the documentation of {{R from misspelling}}, is invalid with respect to template space. I propose postponing a decision on this RFD until a well advertised discussion is held about changing those guidelines. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC) (expanded 03:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC))
    • Template:Cite Sons, Template:Cote web and Template:Cite mixmijsd cijfdmcijrfmcijfrmcijfrnfijrfnifjfrmjfifweb also appear in that list of redlinked templates. Such templates appear in the list regularly: cite jweb, Template:Cite The best Dallas rapper! tweet, cite wev, and that's just the last 48 hours. It is absurd to create redirects for every instance of mistyping. Just correct the typo or undo the vandalism. DrKay (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • This is a straw man. I am not advocating the creation of redirects that are clearly related to vandalism or incompetence. This discussion is about likely typos made by otherwise competent editors, for which more than 100 redirects already exist in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jonesey95: indeed, {{R from misspelling}} should not apply to non-substituted templates in template-space. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • This would represent a change to the current guideline; I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. All are welcome there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • One way I think redirects like this one could be useful is that if it is transcluded, a (new) bot detects the template name misspelling and replaces it with the target template. If this redirect is deleted, a redlink can often remain unnoticed for months or even years, so I view this as the best solution. J947messageedits 02:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @J947: We already have all the bots and behind the scenes machinery to implement something like this - it should be fairly simple to do and shouldn't require any real work. The easiest way of doing this would be to create Template:Cite web/typo as a wrapper that just passes any parameters given to it to a cite web template, set it to be automatically substituted only using {{Always substitute}}, then redirect any plausible typos for cite web to it. This is how we deal with other common template conversions, e.g. {{Internetquelle}} redirects to {{Cite web/German}} which converts the parameters and template name to English and is automatically substituted by a bot. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure it's easier than that. A bot can look for any instances of template redirects that are tagged with {{R from misspelling}} and replace the typo with the correct redirect target. For example, if {{cute news}} is transcluded in an article (and rendering as a valid citation, to the benefit of readers and editors alike), the bot would simply change the "u" to an "i", resulting {{cite news}}, and would not touch the template's parameters. No fancy substing needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only not a likely typo, but barely even a plausible one - if your fingers are in the wrong place so as to type u instead of i, you're also going to type b instead of n. WP:R already forbids this redirect; we don't need to change it to make it even more explicit. There are exactly zero similar redirects in tthe template namespace except ones created by this editor, and already on RFD, and already headed toward strong delete consensuses. —Cryptic 04:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Just a few thoughts here: I think that it's more likely for the finger to slide than for the hands to move position considering the standard indentations on f and j on the keyboard. Also considering that not all people touch type and the fairly sizeable amount of usage that one-place typo redirects receive normally, I think that your premise is interesting but flawed. Also, I'm not sure how WP:R forbids this redirect: some part of the page may discourage its creation, but that's not the same as encouraging its deletion or forbidding it. J947messageedits 06:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

SaugusEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close.

US-amerikanischEdit

This appears to be an improper WP:RLOTE, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment is this in any way used in Pennsylvanian Dutch? IF not, then delete -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Year in Review 10th CenturyEdit

Unlikely search terms. Were used for navigation back in 2002 before being redirected, but these aren't useful redirects. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Transnational issues of the Glorioso IslandsEdit

Stub long-ago merged (no attribution necessary), the current target doesn't provide any useful information for this quite unlikely search term. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Agree seems unlikely. If not deleted, it should probably redirect to Glorioso Islands. CMD (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

NATMOSEdit

Not mentioned at the target, no relevant search results on the internet as far as I can tell. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: NATMOS is a shortening of the album title Nowhere at the Millennium of Space, which itself was inspired by Everywhere at the End of Time. There was info about it that was removed later, since it was too trivial to be included and was only sourced by WP:USERG. Delete per nom. WTR (hello) 22:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enwiki has no mention of this term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Pro ballEdit

"Pro ball" can refer to any ball sport played at the professional level - not to gridiron football in particular. Searching "pro ball" on Google yields results related to many different sports. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 16:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

John W. RiggsEdit

JWR and JMR are totally different initials. I was looking for a John W. Riggs who was a professor/theologian and is still alive not a dead dentist with different initials. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm very confused here. The article was originally created at this title by DRosenbach who moved it to the present title 2 days later. Google searches provide results that are clearly about the same person under both names but I've not found anything that clearly links the two. The article is mainly based on off-line sources I don't have access to so I can't check them. In addition there is an American professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology with the name "John W. Riggs". Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Life After LoveEdit

The phrase is only mentioned at target in quotes from lyrics of the song. In my opinion, it would be more fitting to redirect this to Victoria Monét, who has albums called "Life After Love" (which is where I was originally navigating to, before being redirected here). -- dylx 14:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep but add hatnotes. The Cher song is overwhelmingly the primary topic on google searches for the phrase, being the most prominent lyric in the song that isn't surprising, but wherever this points the current target, Victoria Monét and Life After Love (film) should all be linked by hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate but as Thryduulf says this could be done with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Filipino Traditional Food:BagoongEdit

Implausible title. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Lethal Lava LandEdit

An individual level in the game that is not mentioned in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT. – numbermaniac 08:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. The level itself isn't notable. The redirect title does share a name with a trope on TV Tropes; I would say that most people who find this redirect are looking on the wrong wiki instead of looking for a specific level in a game. HotdogPi 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete we don’t need to list every single level.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Adversarial inputEdit

As Henke37 mentioned on the talk page, a redirect from "Adversarial Input" to "Randomized algorithm" doesn't make sense as the topic and the article's contents are unrelated to Adversarial Input. KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Be urutanEdit

This appears to be the name of a similar sausage in Malay cuisine, but the target only discusses French cuisine. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Balinese cuisine. Urutan is a type of Balinese sausage. The "Be" part translates to meat. Just because it resembles Saucisson doesn't mean it is the exact same. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 19:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The retarget proposal sounds good to me. signed, Rosguill talk 02:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las VegasEdit

Implausible redirect, only existed for ~20 minutes as an undiscussed move, so unlikely to have any incoming external links. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as correct and harmless. No benefit to deletion, but keeping it might help someone find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unlike the other such redirect, this one isn't really correct for the reasons discussed at the ANI -- this location isn't the one most associated with the shooting. Considering that, it's not particularly useful. Vaticidalprophet 04:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: I find it unlikely that anyone would search for this particular name. It's most well known as "the Las Vegas shooting"; even if people know of the Harvest Festival, specifically naming a route number for this is a very unlikely search query. Also agreed with Vaticidalprophet's points. – numbermaniac 09:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as accidental name per nom, and with non-relevant words per numbermaniac. Jay (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

NYC HealthEdit

"NYC Health" is ambiguous and could just as easily refer to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, whose logo reads "NYC Health." However, it actually redirects to NYC Health + Hospitals. In the alternative, I suppose it could be turned into a disambiguation page, though I'm admittedly not entirely sure how to do that. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

May 12Edit

Lunchtime O'BoulezEdit

Not mentioned in the target, at Recurring jokes in Private Eye, or in any other article. This was raised by Martinevans123 at Talk:Private Eye#Cleaning up and merging two months ago with no response, so it doesn't look like there's any enthusiasm for adding a mention to the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep This name was once in the article; and may be again. There is no other plausible target for it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The name is a musical variation of Lunchtime O'Booze per A Great, Silly Grin: The British Satire Boom Of The 1960s (p316). Such Eye usages are common in contemporary English and so a reader might reasonably want to know more. (continued page 94) Andrew🐉(talk) 20:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without a mention anywhere, this redirect is actively unhelpful because it misleads people into thinking we have content that will enable them to know more, but instead they will just be left confused. If the content is readded to the article the redirect can easily be recreated. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert FeggansEdit

Not mentioned in the target, or any other article, with the exception of Sonny with a Chance (season 1), which wouldn't be a useful target. Having inquired at the target talk page, there doesn't seem to be any interest in adding a mention there. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Jonas (TV series)#Recurring where there is a description. Jay (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The description seems to be of a fictional character he plays (albeit a semi-autobiographical one), which tells the reader next to nothing about Feggans himself; I'd probably still favour deleting. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Jay given no mention. The Talk page conversation (or lack of) is now at Archive 2 (and so unlikely to attract any further attention). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos AiresEdit

Delete this redirect as "Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires"' own article has been already created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsoriano97 (talkcontribs) 18:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Alsoriano97: which article are you referring to? This title has never been anything other than a redirect, and no article with a very similar title exists in mainspace or draftspace that I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: In this link I leave you the revision in which it can be seen that I created the article and then it was redirected. I mention CommanderWaterford, who was the one who did it in case he wants to argue something. I am using WP tools that I have never used before, so perhaps my nomination is somewhat broken. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)The nominated page was briefly an article on the provincial-level supreme court. Two minutes after it was created, it was WP:BLARed by User:CommanderWaterford to the article on Argentina's national supreme court, which doesn't mention the provincial supreme court. I don't understand why that was done, and I don't understand the nomination, either. This is all rather confusing. - Eureka Lott 22:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I think what is actually being asked for is to restore the article? If so, yes that would seem sensible but I want to hear why it was redirected first. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • @Thryduulf: @EurekaLott: that's what exactly I'm asking for. The fact that it is a short article is not (or should not be) a reason to be redirected in less than five minutes to an article about a judicial stay that is completely different. That way it has not been given the possibility to improve it, which I am willing to do. Perhaps I have made a mistake in how I've made the nomination, but my idea is this. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore article not an appropriate redirect, these are two different courts, same as the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is not the Supreme Court of the United States. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore article (pending any comment from @CommanderWaterford:). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

AirTagEdit

Per a consensus on AirTag (tracker), the page is being renamed to simply "AirTag" and the page previously just "AirTag" will now be AirTag (company). The "AirTag" redirect needs to be deleted before the naming change can be completed. Abobeck11 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Procedural close. The WP:RM discussion at Talk:AirTag (tracker) is still open. If it's closed with a decision to move, which seems likely, the pages will be moved without the need for a discussion here. - Eureka Lott 17:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose no consensus has yet been established as the requested move is open (at the time this comment was made) . -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural close. The RM closer will fix this. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Jordan OliverEdit

Deletion, as it redirects to another redirect, unneccessarily causing a double redirect PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • You moved Jordan Oliver to Jordan Oliver (professional wrestling), and now you want the former page deleted? That's a bad idea. Why did you move it in the first place? We don't use parenthetical disambiguation for human names unless we have material about multiple people with the same name. - Eureka Lott 16:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Eureka Lott: Hey. I moved it because as you said, there's multiple people with the same name. I have finished a drafted named Draft:Jordan Oliver, who happens to be the 2020 US Olympic Team Member at men's freestyle wrestling 65 kg. As you see, he is a wrestler with the same name, so the only option would be to transfer the draft to an article as Jordan Oliver (wrestler, born 1990). I think this is not worth it because of the notability of the article and how much harder it will be to find when you can simply move the other article to Jordan Oliver (professional wrestler) and delete Jordan Oliver, which isn't even a proper article, it's a redirect to a group of lower notability. I really don't see why this would be such a crazy option to take - PabloLikesToWrestle 14:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Ah, that makes more sense than your initial nomination. Thanks for clarifying. I support moving the draft to Jordan Oliver and adding a hatnote about the professional wrestler. - Eureka Lott 18:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Move Draft:Jordan Oliver to Jordan Oliver. I'm not sure we've got the process right here but Eureka's right. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Next Welsh Assembly ElectionEdit

These redirects are no longer necessary. There will never be another 'National Assembly for Wales' election. While I can understand why this page may have been retained for the 2021 election, given the recent name change, that rationale no longer applies, and there is no valid target to redirect this to now. RGloucester 15:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete but not for the nominator's reason (I think it's reasonable to assume that a user might use the obsolete term for the Senedd) but because we have no suitable target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Next National Assembly for Wales electionEdit

These redirects are no longer necessary. There will never be another 'National Assembly for Wales' election. While I can understand why this page may have been retained for the 2021 election, given the recent name change, that rationale no longer applies, and there is no valid target to redirect this to now. RGloucester 15:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Prager Academical InstitutionEdit

Not a likely search term for PragerU. –dlthewave 12:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A search for that exact term in Google shows no obvious hits. Are there any examples of this term being used by a questionable source? Absent evidence of use, I think removal makes sense. Springee (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a somewhat humorous oxymoron but is unlikely to be used as a search term. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

AyinlaEdit

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

Complex variables (disambiguation)Edit

It seemed like I didn't need this page because complex variables are already disambiguating or redirecting. Also, it is currently a double redirect. I started the discussion because there may be some objections to changing Complex variables to redirects. --SilverMatsu (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep You were the one who redirected the disambiguation page at the title. This was a bad move on your part. You seemingly also did a WP:CPMOVE of the target to Several complex variables, which is now a malformed disambig that doesn't distinguish topics with this name. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Several complex variables and complex analysis have been considered for merge once, and it is ambiguous whether to limit complex analysis to one variable. Sure, for a different reason than disambiguating complex variables, but I didn't copy it. Several complex variables are certainly extensions of one-complex variable analysis to multiple variables, but limiting the scope to analysis alone seems a bit narrow. Another reason I would to make it clear that we didn't change the category name. That is, not only as a short name for the Function of several complex variables, but also as a field name. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment "complex variables" should be revert to its 2012 revision, and marked as a set index instead of a disambiguation page. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Cock carouselEdit

Delete: offensive/abusive term used by incel/MGTOW/PUA types to slander women who have more sex than they do.[1] Not mentioned on the target page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to wikt:ride the cock carousel. The only part of the nomination that is relevant is that the term is not mentioned at the target (see WP:RNEUTRAL), but it is a plausible search term with e.g. 133 page views last year. I couldn't find any relevant content on en.wp, and the article in the page history was essentially just a dictionary definition, so soft redirecting to the Wiktionary entry seems best. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I could live with that, but I'm curious why WP:RFD#D3 would not be relevant here. The Wiktionary entry specificallty says the phrase is derogatory. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The linked WP:RNEUTRAL#Neutrality of redirects section explains why some derogatory terms are good redirects, but basically if a term is (a) likely to be searched and (b) there is relevant content about the term then a redirect will help people find the content they are looking for. The target can (and in many cases should) note any non-obvious concerns around uses (e.g. if it's derogatory, etc), which might be nuanced (e.g. there are terms that are regarded as offensive in the US but not UK and vice versa). Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lin, Jie Liang (2017). "Antifeminism Online: MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)". In Frömming, Urte Undine; et al. (eds.). Digital Environments: Ethnographic Perspectives Across Global Online and Offline Spaces. Transcript Verlag. p. 89. ISBN 978-3-8376-3497-6. JSTOR j.ctv1xxrxw.9.

RooahEdit

Not mentioned in target article (the article now at spirit (animating force) used to be a the base name, and it's not mentioned there or explained anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I can tell) (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete An old version claims rooah to be a variant spelling of ruach, in which case WP:RFOREIGN applies. Certes (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Why not redirect to the article that covers the concept then? That's Holy Spirit in Judaism (which is the target of Ruach). – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      If there's any evidence that rooah is Hebrew for Holy Spirit then yes, that would be a valid target because the language is relevant to the topic. Certes (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      Well, ruach is the Hebrew word for 'spirit' (as documented in the article), and rooah is a straightforward alternative/incorrect anglicisation of that word. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

TinklingEdit

The article Urination does not say that tinkling is a euphemism for urination (in fact it describes tinkling as a sound). I don't think having this redirect is helpful and a better target may be soft redirect to wikt. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate as it can just as easily refer to the sound. MB 16:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary - there's more and better information there than there is on Wikipedia. Urination mentions tinkling as a sound, but I can't find any target which describes the sound in any kind of detail; harmonic oscillator is an article about physical mechanics and doesn't describe a tinkling sound nor any sound at all. Any disambiguation we could create would just be a poor WP:DICDEF substitute for what's already written on Wiktionary. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate It might also mean telephoning or working as a tinker. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Ivanvector. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

LTLEdit

Pageviews do not add up for a primary redirect here. Recommend moving LTL (disambiguation) to the primary title. 162 etc. (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, please close and I will resubmit, thanks. 162 etc. (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with disambiguation page as ambiguous -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 11Edit

PiratingEdit

Retarget to Piracy. The noun form (Pirate) redirects there, so I'm not sure why the gerund form doesn't.Dudhhr (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:R caseEdit

Ambiguous R cat shortcut - for 5 years this targeted Template:R from case citation and was used in the sense of "a legal case", in January this year it was unilaterally retargeted to Template:R from other capitalisation to be used in the sense of "Upper and Lower case letters". Since this has a grand total of 2 transclusions I think it is probably best to delete this. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Normally I would argue "keep" even if backlinks are missing; however, in this "case" there are zero pageviews, so there are probably few or no external links that would be broken if this redirect is deleted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocking (Wikipedia)Edit

Ambiguous cross namespace redirect, Blocking doesn't nessasarily refer to blocking accounts, it could also refer to blocking of the site, as is covered in Censorship of Wikipedia. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. In general, XNRs to projectspace should only be for cases where the reader is likely looking for an internal Wikipedia page. That's not at all clear here. Block already has a selfref hatnote to WP:BLOCK and two other internal pages, which should be sufficient. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia administrators#Role? I think it's a more plausible target than Censorship of Wikipedia, considering the parentheses. Maybe the first redirect should target a different place to the second one? Or it might be just best to delete. J947's public account 01:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Next to be listed on Rfd should be Troll (Wikipedia). Jay (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Block. The hatnote there will help those looking for project space pages, Block (internet) will help some others and I've added a link to Internet censorship to help yet more people. I wouldn't object to targetting Block#Computing and adding a hatnote to the internet pages there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Opel Meriva LifeEdit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please also delete Opel Combo Life, Vauxhall Combo Life, Opel Combo Cargo, also created by the same blocked user. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G3 as a hoax. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh wait... it's a real variant. Maybe it should warrant mentioning in the Opel Meriva article? Dominicmgm (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
"Life" was just an equipment level of the regular Meriva; it doesn't merit a redirect. Especially not since this entry is an effort by a sock puppeteer/vandal to create non-existant rebadged cars (it was never a version of the Citroën Berlingo). See also Opel VXR8, Daewoo Polonez, Daewoo Polonez Kombi.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheko no KechōEdit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment the name was deleted on May 9 [5] with a weird edit comment about "Simple"; I don't get what the edit comment is referring to. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:SORTIERUNG:LasorlingEdit

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

Cheating on You (song)Edit

Should Cheating on You (song) be retargeted to Cheating on You, or should Cheating on You (song) and Cheating on You (Charlie Puth song) both be deleted (or tagged as a redirect from unnecessary disambiguation)? -- dylx 14:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

🇸🇺Edit

This doesn't seem to be a real emoji. I can't find any reference for this. Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I can't see a flag either, but this is in Category:Redirects from emoji flags. Most of those also just appear as two-letter combinations to me, though some do display as flags. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonexistent emoji. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting case. The Regional indicator symbol article explains that the emoji national flags are generated by two-character combinations from the regional indicator symbol subset. For example, REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL LETTER U and REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL LETTER S together make the US flag: 🇺🇸 (if your system supports it). As noted in the deprecated sequences table on that page, SU is the reserved code for the Soviet Union, but no emoji has been created yet, as far as I can tell. It's possible that this will work at some point in the future. - Eureka Lott 00:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eureka. It seems WP:CHEAP enough to have these for any valid code, even ones that aren't currently implemented. If even one software somewhere implements this, then someone who doesn't recognize the flag could quite plausibly copy-paste it into Wikipedia to see what it represents. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 00:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tamzin. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Aquaduct of SulviusEdit

A new redirect with two spelling errors (cf Aqueduct of Sylvius). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Business Information SystemsEdit

"Business Information System" is not mentioned at the target in plural, singular, capitalised or uncapitalised forms. Is there a better target, or should these redirects be deleted as ambiguous (with, for example, YTJ (Finnish government service))? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Business Information System - Disambig to Enterprise information system and YTJ (Finnish government service). Jay (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Fear the HuntersEdit

Isn't mentioned in the article and no idea what alternative name it is referring to. Gonnym (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete: That user is/was well-known (see their talk page) for prematurely creating redirects for Walking Dead episodes based on rumors/unverified reports regarding titles for upcoming episodes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Angus, that would certainly make more sense than the current target. – numbermaniac 09:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 HospitalEdit

This is too specific a topic for the redirect title. feminist (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment At one point, this page did have text on it: [6]. However, I agree that the current target should be deleted or changed; perhaps Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitals? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment to me this title refers to hospitals specifically set up for COVID-19, like the NHS Nightingale hospitals, or the insta-build hospitals in China, and not a specific hospital in particular. If this article is to exist, it should be a list of such hospitals or point to such a list. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • With a quick search, I found two articles on temporary hospitals with a COVID focus: Fangcang hospital for China, and COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom. I don't think we have anything on temporary buildings or structures generally (hence my nomination of Temporary structure above), let alone hospitals. The base COVID-19 pandemic has links to the British and Chinese uses, but would require further searching to locate within the article. Besides the current target, Category:Hospitals established for the COVID-19 pandemic has relevant content, so maybe the best solution would be a disambiguation page, which could eventually progress (perhaps via WP:CONCEPTDAB) to a real article. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unsuitable redirect (and bad caps for an article/dab-page title) since there are too many possible meanings. Whether any of the proposed alternatives are more acceptable is another question. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambig per BDD with at least COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Hospital ships involved in the COVID-19 pandemic‎, Fangcang hospital and a link to the category listed. Pedantically the dab should be at a title something like Covid-19 hospitals but wherever the dab is this title is a useful search term than should redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Rename to Covid-19 hospitals per Thryduulf. And that can redirect to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitals per AllegedlyHuman. I would like to see that article dealing with new hospitals set up for Covid as well as existing hospitals modified to treat Covid. Jay (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Move to "Covid-19 hospitals" and then Delete "COVID-19 Hospital". Jay (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    WP:MOVEREDIRECT. J947messageedits 05:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    No clue on what that guide is trying to say, however I changed the vote to clarify what I meant by rename. Jay (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Moving redirects is pretty much benefitless. Just create a new redirect. J947messageedits 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Moving preserves page history, and the redirect has a lot because it was a merge with the target, before the redirect happened. Jay (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    There's no point in moving the redirect anyway because COVID-19 Hospital is a completely normal search term that shouldn't be deleted. J947messageedits 20:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it's a normal search term, but there needn't be a page with that search term. Jay (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    Why not? J947messageedits 22:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Someone can create a disambiguation page or SIA at Covid-19 hospitals if they wish. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Going greenEdit

Should this redirect be targeted to Environmentalism or Environmentally friendly or some other target? Interstellarity (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

May 10Edit

List of 2001: A Space Odyssey triviaEdit

No trivia section labeled, or list in the article. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • REVERT to this version, which was the last version before an edit war occurred about the existence of the list. It was a controversial redirection, so should have had a discussion, but did not occur, according to the talk page. Therefore, it should be reverted to the list article, and sent to AfD, which was bypassed even though a prior AfD exists for the article. The talk page mentions converting the trivia list into a Making of 2001 film article. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any controversy has dissipated since 2007. Wikipedia is not IMDB. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert without prejudice to AfD per the IP. RfD must not be used to delete article content, especially when there was no consensus at AfD to delete the content. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace. This'd fall afoul of being an indiscriminate collection of information in the mainspace, but at the same time we don't wanna delete the content, so it's best to revert the content and userfy it. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore and AfD - the content here survived a prod and an AFD discussion before being edit warred out of existence, so I think the article needs a proper AfD discussion as it's deletion is clearly not uncontroversial. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

PortuGreekEdit

Enwiki does not appear to have content about this fictional language anywhere. Hog Farm Talk 19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. We have no content on this fictional language, so there is no good target for this redirect. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and the IP. -- dylx 15:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Indonesian EnglishEdit

The target article makes no mention of Indonesia. feminist (+) 16:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak Retarget to Languages of Indonesia#English, which talks about the usage of English in Indonesia, but doesn't really contain any content on if a distinct dialect of Indonesian English exists. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per the IP. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Love DucksEdit

This was an element in an episode, but it's not mentioned in the target. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I've added Love Ducks to this nomination, as if kept they should end up pointing to the same target. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I can't find any relevant use of "love ducks" in mainspace. I did find, and revert, some vandalism that had been overlooked since January though (the motto of Sorell School is not "I love ducks"). Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both per Thryduulf: not mentioned anywhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Arthur_(season_4)#ep75b. It's better to direct readers to the episode where the Love Ducks are a major plot element, as this is more specific and verifiable than the series page/characters list. Scrooge200 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Problem is, the Love Ducks aren't even mentioned there or anywhere on the English Wikipedia for that manner. Dominicmgm (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Button islandEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

GaladorianEdit

Not mentioned in target article. Discussed at Rom the Space Knight, List of alien races in DC Comics#G, and List of alien races in Marvel Comics#G. Galador is a one-entry dab page. Not sure what the best target is, as I'm not familiar with the comics usages. Hog Farm Talk 14:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: Not mentioned; nor, I think, are we going to bother to mention Galador or his -ian adjective at Gondor. He was the first prince of Dol Amroth, which now doesn't have its own article, so we're into a redirect to a redirect to a redirect for this adjectival form. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Supply Side JesusEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: kept.

BarrissEdit

I don't think a last name should redirect to an article about an incident that mentions a person who just so happens to have that last name. We could possibly redirect to Barris, a more common surname with similar spelling, though I'm not sure if that's appropriate, so maybe deletion is the best option. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane:, redirects are a very common feature in Wikipedia and redirects from surnames to individuals are common, too: Freud, Einstein, Kampusch. Also redirects from Names to incidents are common: Kyle Rittenhouse, Rusten Sheskey, Eric Stillman. If there were more people with this surname having an article, somebody would have made a disambiguation page (feel free to make one, including Barriss Offee). The 2017 Wichita swatting got a lot of attention, which is why Tyler Barriss is listed in five different articles. If you don't think a last name should redirect to an article about an incident that mentions a person who just so happens to have that last name, why start with Barriss? Better ask for a rule clarification here.
Yours, Ciciban (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ciciban: I'd appreciate it if you didn't patronise me, or anyone else. I know redirects are "a very common feature". Since 2008 I've created over 380 of them on Wikipedia.
I think your comparisons are poor. The surname redirects for Freud, Einstein and Kampusch link to an actual person. The redirects for Kyle Rittenhouse etc are all full names. That's no comparison to what you've done here. We already have Tyler Barriss redirecting to 2017 Wichita swatting. That's appropriate. I don't think your surname redirect is though. If there was no other notable character/person with the last name Barriss I wouldn't have a problem with that surname redirecting to an article on Tyler Barriss, if one existed. But one doesn't, and as you've pointed out, there is at least one notable character who also uses that name (Barriss Offee redirects to List of Star Wars characters). In any case, I find it incredibly unlikely anyone would decide the first point of call for searching for information on the shooting would be typing the surname of one person involved in it into Wikipedia. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
While I'd prefer deletion, I'm not opposed to creating a disambiguation page for Barriss, now that you've mentioned it. However, I note it's not recommended to move a page nominated for deletion. Also I'm not sure if it's appropriate to disambiguate when the only two entries at that page will be redirects themselves. If someone could tell me the precedent in this situation I'd appreciate it. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Damien Linnane:
You can always withdraw the nomination. And I see no reason, why this kind of disambiguation should be forbidden. This would be a very special rule. So feel free to make it. And for the rest: Better seek a rule clarification here than patronising me with with your deletion request on basis of what you personally like/dislike/think/don't think/consider a strong comparison/consider a poor comparison.
Yours, Ciciban (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ciciban: Please read WP:AGF. I'd advise you not to take it personally when someone questions one of your edits. Contrary to what you've convinced yourself of, this discussion was not my attempt to personally patronise you. In 13 years of editing Wikipedia I'd simply never seen a surname (opposed to a full name) redirecting to an incident. This is not a common occurrence, but that should be clear from the fact you couldn't find another example of this ever happening, so I decided to start a discussion about it to get other opinions. When you don't know what to do in a certain situation, asking for advice from people with more experience would be considered a normal response. That shouldn't require explanation, but here we are. I'm not here to attack your edits, I'm trying to improve Wikipedia for everyone. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I started a draft disambiguation page below the redirect. - Eureka Lott 17:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Eureka Lott: I'm happy with the disambiguation page you've made, and as the creator does not oppose it I'm happy to withdraw this discussion. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Eureka Lott: Thanks – Ciciban (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Stadio OlympicaEdit

This redirect has a long history, eventually ending up as a redirect to the current target. But I don't think "Olympica" is right: the first reference at the target has "Lo Stadio del ghiaccio" so even if the grammar were correct, the stadium was not known as "Stadio Olympica". Furthermore, as a misspelling, the term is ambiguous with Stadio Olimpico in Rome, and others. On the whole, I think a retarget to Olympic Stadium (disambiguation) would be better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

White War (film)Edit

The subject is not a film. The article only exists as this title for about six hours and there is now no page linking to this redirect. It is unlikely to be useful for searching. Sun8908Talk 07:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment no objection to deletion. Mccapra (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. If it was never a film this redirect will not be helpful. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Tang-e ShurEdit

"Tang-e Shur" is one thing, "Tang-e Shur-e Olya" is a completely different thing. Olya means "upper". These abadis are in different counties in the same province. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Restore version before it was redirected and send to AfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Since this was relisted, here is context regarding "restore". The Iran abadi stubs had a consensus to mass delete, so the only question at hand is whether or not the redirect should be kept. -- Tavix (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Delete given the close of the related RfDs. I don't think this is any different. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Without knowing what the rest of the name means, I think this one is okay. Since "Upper" is an adjective, redirecting FOO to Upper FOO when there is no notable FOO makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Arboretum Oaks ApartmentsEdit

The article this pointed to was redirected to the current target. As Arboretum Oaks Apartments is not mentioned at the target, I think this should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Велике журі присяжнихEdit

Delete per WP:FORRED: Ukrainian term is not mentioned in the target, and no special connection for the term to the Ukrainian language. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Very weak retarget to Judiciary of Ukraine, otherwise delete. The general concept of a grand jury has no specific connection to the Ukrainian language. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the article has no special connection to the language it shouldn't be there. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Also, Judiciary of Ukraine doesn’t even mention grand juries let alone Велике журі присяжних so that isn’t a useful target.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like a mere translation from English. It's not in Ukrainian judiciary tradition according to what I read and know. I couldn't find IRS that would prove it either. As an option it can be retargeted to Grand Jury (disambiguation). Less Unless (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Grand jury (disambiguation) doesn’t mention this term either so it had the same issue as the current target.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

CheckgateEdit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: No vote here, just clearing it up .... it's the original youtube channel username, as can still be seen by visiting http://youtube.com/checkgate. Why did the creators open their account under the name checkgate? We don't know, and likely never will .... it's worth a mention that it seems to be a common noun, most prevalent in Indian English, and could at least merit a Wiktionary entry. Soap 18:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete until/unless a Wiktionary entry is created, in which case soft redirect. A lot of YouTubers have usernames that don't have anything in common with the name they go by—Tom Scott, for instance, had his channel at /enyay for the longest time, to his chagrin—and I don't see any indication that anyone ever refers to the Cocomelon channel by this name outside of a handful of automated listings. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 17:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Earlier account name of Cocomelon per Soap. Jay (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Soap. This should not be ignored and should be mentioned in the article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    If only there was a reliable reference. Jay (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Check valve, as valves are sometimes called gates -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Phantom MenaceEdit

Not discussed in target article, seems to be an obscure satirical name for target. Created by now-banned user. Hog Farm Talk 06:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Raiders of the Phantom MenaceEdit

Doesn't seem to be a standard name for the target, likely a joke about the somewhat bizarre plot device of the movie. Google search brings up very minimal usage, so this seems to be the sort of novel or obscure synonym that gets deleted. Hog Farm Talk 06:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination. Appears to be completely satirical. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I get where this name comes from, but unless the satirical name is notable enough to warrant a redirect (like Fishtar) it shouldn't exist. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G3. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • delete as joke redirect --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I agree with all of the above. Less Unless (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 9Edit

Wikipedia:CREdit

Proposing retarget to Wikipedia:Closure requests, which was recently moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure (WP:ANRFC) in Wikipedia talk:Closure requests § Requested move 22 March 2021. Multiple editors in the requested move suggested usurping this shortcut for the closure requests noticeboard.

According to pageview data, the closure requests noticeboard received a combined 7,353 pageviews in the last 90 days, while Wikipedia:Cleanup resources received only 344 in the same time period. — Newslinger talk 11:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I think it would probably be best to Disambiguate this, as the current target has a hatnote with 4 other pages this could reasonably be targeted to, and we now have two processes with this initialism which have a reasonable claim to it, one because they've been using this shortcut for 15 years and have hundereds of backlinks, the other because it's a widely used noticeboard. I think a reasonable dab page would include Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Closure requests, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, probably a couple of others I've missed. Perhaps claim a new shortcut for the closure requests noticeboard, e.g. no one is using WP:CLR yet. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Closure requests per nom; shortcuts are meant to shortcuts, not longcuts. The incoming links will need to be fixed however. J947messageedits 01:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would strongly lean toward retargeting if it weren't for the issue of all the historical links to the old shortcut. Is there any way to mass change those so that they don't start pointing to the wrong place? If so, we should do that. I oppose disambiguation, which combines the worst of both: disrupts the history, and prevents WP:Closure requests from obtaining a convenient shortcut it was specifically moved to the new title so it could have. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, either AutoWikiBrowser or JavaScript Wiki Browser can change the old WP:CR links into piped links that point to Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. I can do this if there is consensus to retarget, and anyone is welcome to join in. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, in that case, Retarget. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep or disambiguate - This redirect is more than one decade old, so in my opinion, the time for changing it has passed. However, a disambiguation page may be helpful, if that is something done for Wikipedia space. Per WP:ONEOTHER, "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that." --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate seems to be best -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per above. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Closure_requests#Requested_move_22_March_2021. I proposed Wikipedia:Requests for closure initially, but that was rejected due to lacking a suitable acronym, indicating editors cared for a suitable acronym to the page when agreeing to move that title. (the retarget was mentioned in the proposal and nobody made a comment opposing the retarget, and a few explicitly made arguments for why it was appropriate to hijack the redirect). TBH, I thought that discussion was consensus to enact that consensus until I saw this RfD exists when I was looking to implement the retargeting today (I suppose all retargets need to go via RfD? TIL.) Anyway, Wikipedia:Cleanup resources is absolutely not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Incoming links should probably be updated if this is retargeted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • COUNTER Proposal: Why not CRN (Closure Requests Noticeboard) as the new shortcut? Solves the history/archive problem, short, and logical. GenQuest "scribble" 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    It's a mouthful to (unnecessarily, IMO) add "noticeboard" onto the end and makes the title more convoluted. I'm not convinced ATM the history/archive problem is major (it's solvable in the manner Newslinger says above), and would happen every time a dab page is created (per WP:DAB) or removed (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), and happens in other areas too (like when templates are deleted). But I could be wrong, as redirects aren't my specialty. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note for closer: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Closure requests#Requested move 22 March 2021, which passed, was in large part predicated on hijacking WP:CR, something that was explicitly spelled out in the nomination. Given the large amount of participation at that discussion, the closer may wish to give some amount of weight to the views of the !voters there. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. We should always be very conservative about changing the target of shortcut redirects because doing so has the potential to cause old comments (linked and unlinked), edit summaries, etc. to become misleading and causing the same problems for new comments - people do not expect shortcuts to change so they will continue to write and read them as meaning the old target while others will do the same for the new one causing miscommunication and confusion. This shortcut has been established as referring to the current target for over 15 years so any change will be disruptive. That a newly renamed page has the same initials does not come close to justifying or outweighing that disruption, especially when it is already linked in a hatnote. I also oppose disambiguation as that just makes all the old (and new) links ambiguous causing nearly as much disruption while benefiting nobody. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Closure requests. The now renamed closure requests is are more valuable page to quickly link to than the current.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget. Here's the thing. I agree that we should be super careful about retargeting a longstanding shortcut. But this particular shortcut is currently an obscure page that's likely cited very rarely. The cost is comparatively small, and the gain comparatively large. Wikipedia talk:Closure requests#Requested move 22 March 2021 indicated a strong consensus to usurp this redirect, and I think that was the right call. Tamwin (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in order to ping the participants of the aforementioned RM who have not (yet) participated in this discussion. A point has been made that the RM was based on using this shortcut, so I can start to see a consensus form if combined with comments in the RM supporting the shortcut change. However, it'd be nice to have explicit consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Karoline HenryEdit

This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Caroline Henry and the same arguments apply. These are different names, and there is no evidence that anyone listed at the disambiguation is a [K|C]arolin[e|a]. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Courtesy pings to the participants of the previous discussion: Rocknrollmancer, Roman Spinner, Shhhnotsoloud, Jay, and Explicit. -- Tavix (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per previous nomination - no reason for this to exist. (Thx Tavix for the nomination and ping).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly legitimate redirects in the same manner as "Phillip" may redirect to "Philip" or "Stephen" may redirect to "Steven". —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 23:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The target does not disambiguate these terms. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as already pointed out in the last discussion, full name redirects to targets which don't discuss anyone known by that variant are not legitimate, and are regularly deleted. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Effendi MuseumEdit

No mention of museums at the target, other than a brief mention of a statute of an effendi held in a museum collection. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sumarian floodEdit

This redirect should be deleted. Nothing links to here. It is a seldom used misspelling, according to Google, 1:35. marilyn.hanson (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep this is a harmless {{R from move}} and {{R from misspelling}}. Almost 30 people were helped by this redirect last year, whereas nobody will benefit from its deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sumarian rulersEdit

This redirect should be deleted, is a misspelling and originates from a seemingly dyslectic article of 2005, "THE CODE OF HAMMURABARI": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sumarian_rulers&oldid=28347392. Or, at the very least, it should redirect to Sumerian King List. Nothing links to here. It is a seldom used misspelling, according to Google, 1:35. marilyn.hanson (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

H.I.H Jacob, Prince of the VlachsEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted

Principality of VlachiaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted

User:Principality of VlachiaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per [[WP:CSD#G6|]]

User talk:Principality of VlachiaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per [[WP:CSD#G6|]]

"Mark Marek"Edit

Seems a very unlikely search; Mark Marek without quotemarks already exists. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, pageviews abound, so an old link exists? I don't know, but it's best to keep the redirect in case deletion causes problems for readers, which seems likely. J947messageedits 22:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Karen HensonEdit

I don't think the name 'Karen Henson' is distinctive enough to assume that it is referring to the COO of what seems to be a barely notable preparatory school in California, a school with a three-line stub, and Karen Henson only mentioned a single time in the infobox. I stumbled upon this while clicking on the cast list of a drama, and indeed the eight pages which link to the redirect are all with regard to the actress. It's possible that they're the same person but it seems a lot more likely that it's an error, but either way the reader has to guess. Scatterkeir (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete and remove unencyclopedic (and probably out-of-date) list of non-notable officials from the article's infobox. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- dylx 15:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

CorbynEdit

Was targeted to Jeremy Corbyn for a long time, recently retargeted to Corbyn (name). I'm personally indifferent to where it should go, but I think this should be discussed first. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • It was only between 2015-2020 the surname "Corbyn" would definitely have referred to Jeremy Corbyn amongst most of the British public - Jeremy Corbyn was a backbencher between 1983 and 2015 and most people wouldn't have heard of him. Since stepping down as leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn hasn't really been in the spotlight apart from stating the odd comment about something here and there. Since 2020, Jeremy Corbyn's brother Piers Corbyn has been receiving a lot of publicity for his conspiracy theories about Covid-19 and his views about vaccines and lockdowns. If you look at the history of the Piers Corbyn article, you will see that the article has been greatly expanded over the last year or so. Piers Corbyn even tried to become the Mayor of London! The surname is associated with both brothers these days rather than just Jeremy Corbyn.--OZZY19455 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Corbyn&pws=0 first page seems to be split 50:50, so it doesn't seem likely that Jeremy would be more likely to be the topic of interest for his surname than all the others combined, esp. in the long term. It should be noted, though, that the article title is a bit odd - if there's no potential for anything other than a name there, and no potential for surname and given name to be split, it should just be named "Corbyn". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Jeremy Corbyn remains by some way the best known person with this name, still a lot more important than his brother. PatGallacher (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    @PatGallacher: Is he? According to whom? 'Corbyn' isn't synonymous with Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, in 2021, I would argue that it depends on whom you ask as to whether or not Corbyn means Jeremy Corbyn or Piers Corbyn. The latter has had tons more coverage in the press over the last year or so, although I would argue for the wrong reasons. Prior to 2015, Jeremy Corbyn was pretty much a nobody - a backbencher radical rebel who wasn't that well known to the British public - whereas his brother Piers Corbyn has been involved with politics, weather predictions and climate change denial for decades. Since stepping down as the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn is only in the press when it's got something to do with the Labour Party like right now.--OZZY19455 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If the redirect is kept as it is, a WP:ROUNDROBIN move should take place. J947messageedits 22:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate between Jeremy Corbyn, Corbyn (name) the name article, Corbyn, Stacey & Company (which existed as Corbyn before 1772), Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics which has the short title "Corbyn";;; and see alsos for Corbyn Head Hotel, Corbin (disambiguation), Corbins, Corban (disambiguation), Corben, and a wiktionary link -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Move Corbyn (name) to Corbyn which is what should have been done instead of redirecting Corbyn to Corbyn (name). The fact that the redirect was retargeted (albeit incorrectly) and from comments on this RfD entry, it is not clear that Jeremy is the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Terrorism ResearchEdit

I believe that the target of this redirect should be Contemporary Voices, the current name of the journal which was called Journal of Terrorism Research from 2010 to 2017, and which has been cited as such many times. If you look at Talk:Terrorism and Political Violence and the information I have put into the lead of this article, you will see that that journal has never actually been called Journal of Terrorism Research, but only referred to as such in a single "editorial manifesto". I think that this may have been the title once thought of for this journal, but it was changed before publication, registration, etc. and they just forgot to change the name in that manifesto.Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Does @Headbomb: have a view: they'e often interested in journals? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • My view is mostly that the first journal named that way should be the target. It's not a particularly strongly held view, I just know I'd want a community discussion on it, rather than one person deciding what the target of the redirect should be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • My view is that the "first journal" was never published under that name though, and all citations to the two journals (and ISSN, Library of Congress name authorities, etc.) all point to the first one only ever being referred to as Terrorism and Political Violence, and the second one as Journal of Terrorism Research and later, Contemporary Voices. Hence need a couple of other people to opine on this one. I have not done extensive work on academic journal articles, but am looking at it from a librarian's point of view. Always happy to accept consensus and defer to usual practice. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 07:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom (t · c) buidhe 23:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. No reason to redirect to a journal who originally thought of the name but did not get to use it. Jay (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

GTA 6Edit

There are no confirmed plans for Grand Theft Auto IV to come to WP:CRYSTALlization, as argued in the discussions for Grand Theft Auto IV and Grand Theft Auto 6 below. Why would we still need them lying around if that's the case? Regards, SONIC678 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete and Salt per below. Even if there were plans for this game the current target article has no mention of the 6th game or any future plans for the franchise. These should be salted if deleted as the two below have been frequent targets of unsourced hoax articles and spam. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Salt until a GTA 6 is officially announced. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't even come out. Dominicmgm (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The result of this discussion should coincide with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 8#Grand Theft Auto 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Gender violenceEdit

Gender violence also includes Violence against men and Violence against LGBT people. Sharouser (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Literal meaning of GV does not exclude violence against men or LGBT. Sharouser (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf and Sharouser comments. A separate article can be created later. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. As explained at Violence against women these terms are normally used interchangably with "violence against women". The meaning of a phrase does not have to match its literal definition. Kaldari (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    That they are sometimes (incorrectly) used interchangably does not mean they always are - see the multiple articles in the category that are not (exclusively) about violence against women. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Russian-Romanian bilingualismEdit

Implausible redirect, nobody would search "Russian-Romanian biliguism" to search for the languages spoken in Moldova. The redirect got 0 visits in the last 30 days, and probably in the last months too. It must also be noted not everyone speaks Russian in Moldova; only 15% of the population declared using Russian on a day to day basis (while Romanian is spoken by everyone in Moldova). Super Ψ Dro 09:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Long HotsEdit

An internet search suggests that this refers to a specific pepper used in Italian (Italian-American?) cuisine, but I can't find any article on Wikipedia that corresponds to it or otherwise mentions it. I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 8Edit

Kamagethi dynastyEdit

Not mentioned at the target, no results on Google Scholar, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I have come across this mention here, it's an official webpage, can be considered reliable. However no other mentions found. Maybe a search in Hindi may help. Less Unless (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Edward BudgenEdit

This page started out as an article on a merchant who left some money to the church of England, but which was converted into a redirect in 2009 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Budgen. The current target contains no mention of this person, and I wasn't able to find any content on him anywhere else 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Stagnated democracyEdit

I think as it stands this redirect is more likely to surprise readers than to help them. As best I can tell this is a partial title match for the English translation of a paper originally published in Spanish by this academic, which I think is a rather tenuous link. A google search doesn't suggest to me that the phrase "Stagnated democracy" is paticularly strongly associated with Sergio Aguayo. The best potential target I was able to find is Political stagnation, but I don't think it's a perfect fit. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nominator. It is confusing for a link about a political concept to lead to an article about a person. JIP | Talk 15:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget I agree the current target can hardly be associated with the search term. My google search showed that the term is actually used so it should be redirected either to Political stagnation or to Democracy with some information added. I've found these sources that can be used: 1 - an often mentioned work by Eric Hiariej, 2, 3 from 1870, 4 - short mention. Less Unless (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

VeskaEdit

Redirect from a minor Planet of the Apes character, original article converted to a redirect eight years ago. Not mentioned in the target article. Only incoming link is from Planet of the Apes (TV series) which mentions him once in passing. Delete to make way for Draft:Veska (shopping mall) once it gets accepted or someone else writes an article about the mall. JIP | Talk 11:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto 6Edit

Same goes for it’s sister page Grand Theft Auto VI, game does not exist nor been officially confirmed by Rockstar Games. Any video with the title “official” on YouTube is a hoax. It’s actually some sort of a crystal ball. No article uses this redirect page. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt. The target article has no mention of GTA 6 and no mention of any future plans for the series. The only content in the page history is Hoax content about the game being released in 2017, sourced to fake videos on YouTube. If deleted this will probably need salting as there have been multiple attempts to make an article at this title. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talkwork) 09:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto VIEdit

This game does not exist, nor has been officially confirmed by Rockstar Games. Any video with the title official you see on YouTube are just hoax. It can also be a sort of crystal ball. No article uses this redirect page. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt. The target article has no mention of GTA 6 and no mention of any future plans for the series. The only content in the page history is Hoax content about the game being released in 2017, sourced to fake videos on YouTube. If deleted this will probably need salting as there have been multiple attempts to make an article at this title. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talkwork) 09:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

George TrebekEdit

Currently, a hatnote at Alex Trebek points to George Trebeck (with a "c"). Alex Trebek is, certainly, a more notable figure than George Trebeck. However, I can find barely any instances of anyone ever referring to Trebek by just his first and last names. The Googling is somewhat complicated by the fact that his father had the same first name, but "george trebek" -father turns up only one relevant result that I can find: this blog post describing an article the Ottawa Citizen allegedly ran in 1961. It refers to him as "George Trebek" in the headline but "George Alexander Trebek", second reference "Alexander", in the body. (I'll note that a search for the quoted headline returns only that blog post, nothing from the Citizen itself, and the blog isn't exactly an RS.)

Given all that, I find it rather unlikely that someone would search for our article on Trebek using this search term. I suppose someone could be looking for information about his father, but the article only says a few words about George E. Trebek, so in that case a redirect is misleading. I propose retargeting to George Trebeck with hatnote pointing to the current target. Second choice delete per WP:XY. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 13:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Added context (see underlined portion). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - I can't understand what this proposal is about because George Trebek is a page, not a redirect. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Kautilya3: Perhaps the issue is the similar titles? George Trebek, the subject of this RFD, redirects to Alex Trebek. George Trebeck (note the "c"), my proposed new target, is an article about a 19th-century explorer. Unless I'm hallucinating here... -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Kautilya3: err, George Trebek is a redirect to Alex Trebek, and has been since creation in 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. (Sorry for all the confusion!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep most people would guess at "-eck", not "-ek", if they didn't know the spelling, and it's unlikely that this would ever have been created as a redirect to George Trebeck. If there are sources for this as an alternative spelling of Trebeck, I would support retargeting. Peter James (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep although not common, I did find this with "George A. Trebek". MB 03:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I personally think that Alex Trebek is a better target, since George Trebek is a less common name of George "Alex Trebek", whereas its only a misspelling of George Trebeck. The latter is also only a stub, and gets far less page views. However, I do understand where the nominator (Tamzin) was going. Additionally, when I compared the page views of the redirect with that of George Trebeck, in an attempt to see if the redirect had more page views (therefore proving that most people who took the redirect didn't immediately jump to the George Trebeck article), I found that the article had more page views, disproving my original point. However this doesn't directly prove that more people are actually looking for the George Trebeck article when typing "George Trebek", so this is staying as my opinion unless that gets proved. Mattx8y (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. SCP-053 (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    SCP-053 (talkcontribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waitemata (talkcontribs). -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 21:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, correct names should generally be prioritised over incorrect names. The hatnote suffices. J947messageedits 20:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per a request on my talk page. Discussion was previously closed as keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. People who are better known by their middle name than their real first name don't need redirects from the first names that almost nobody actually knows about. The likelihood that anybody would ever search for Alex Trebek by typing George Trebek in the search box is literally non-existent. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • That's not really borne out by actual data. J947messageedits 22:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
      • That just proves that people have searched for "George Trebek". It fails to prove that they did so intending to get to Alex, rather than looking for George Trebeck and landing on Alex by surprise. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I'm responding to your argument for deletion. It could be that those readers are looking for something like George Trebeck, but that isn't an argument for deletion, that's an argument for the redirect to be retargeted. If the redirect is deleted then readers searching for targets other than Alex Trebek will be disadvantaged by suboptimal search results. If the redirect is kept as is or retargeted readers will easily access the article they are after via hatnotes that are already there (or would likely be added). So, why delete? J947messageedits 00:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
          • A fundamental limitation of RFD is that we can't read the minds of people who access a redirect. But we can use common sense. Do we think that people are, with any regularity, typing in "George Trebek" because they're looking for Alex Trebek? That's not a rhetorical question. If the answer is "yes", we should keep the redirect, and if it's "no", we should retarget (per me) or delete (per Bearcat). But could you elaborate on why you think it's a "yes"? Number of hits alone isn't a good enough argument in either direction, since it's not like our readers get a "How satisfied are you with where this redirect pointed you?" quiz that pops up. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
            • My main concern as to this redirect is that it shouldn't be deleted as that harms readers' ability to find the right page, but the target doesn't matter so much as there's an appropriate hatnote. For me, there's negligible difference between where readers are looking between the two targets, and in that scenario, the correct name is generally prioritised as to not "punish" readers for entering a correct name. (FWIW, I think it's surprisingly common to remember a person's last name but only a less common given name – odd memory things.) J947's public account 00:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I meant "delete" specifically in the sense that it shouldn't be pointed to Alex. If somebody wants to repoint it to George instead of deleting it, or recreate a new redirect to George from the redlink after deleting it, I have no issue with that — I only have an issue with it being pointed to Alex. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

MoraiEdit

Not mentioned at target, but might probably refer to other topics, such as Rashid Morai or a redlinked entry at {{Areas of Chennai}}. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "morae, marae, morai - term used by foreign observers when referring to heiau" - https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/kona/historyg.htm Nurg (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to marae per Nurg. marae means a sacred place that serves religious and social purposes in Polynesian societies. Morai is indeed mentioned in the current target, see the image captioned "An illustration of a heiau at Kealakekua Bay at the time of James Cook's third voyage, by William Ellis." The image says it is a view of a Morai. The image description at Commons says it is of a Morai at Kealakekua Bay. The Kealakekua Bay article mentions Morai as a sacred burial ground. Jay (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambig. It can include Rashid Morai, the redlinked entry at {{Areas of Chennai}} (last I checked WP:RED, this is allowed), the term morae, marae, morai, and possibly Moirai and Mirai in a see also section. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly care what happens to it, but if I had to make a decision I'd leave it as it is, since it's a term used when referring to heiau. Nurg (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer OlympicsEdit

Delete redirect to encourage article creation Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Both of these redirects were articles before being redirected by Onel5969. So the nominator's rationale for deletion is rather flawed. Don't delete the redirect because that would be back-door deletion of an article. J947messageedits 21:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The current redirect doesn't give any subject information, so red link is perfectly fine until someone wants to create a decent article. Which is likely to happen once some competitors from the country are qualified. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore the article in the page history per WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, redirecting individual country's participation articles to the article about the general sporting event is reasonable, especially given that the event has not yet occurred. Restoring the article only to send it to AfD and have it deleted, only to have it recreated in a few months seems like a lot of bureaucracy to little benefit. signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Nauru at the 2020 Summer OlympicsEdit

Delete redirect to encourage article creation Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Both of these redirects were articles before being redirected by Onel5969. So the nominator's rationale for deletion is rather flawed. Don't delete the redirect because that would be back-door deletion of an article. J947messageedits 21:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The current redirect doesn't give any subject information, so red link is perfectly fine until someone wants to create a decent article. Which is likely to happen once some competitors from the country are qualified. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore the article in the page history per WP:BLAR. This is without prejudice to AfD if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, redirecting individual country's participation articles to the article about the general sporting event is reasonable, especially given that the event has not yet occurred. Restoring the article only to send it to AfD and have it deleted, only to have it recreated in a few months seems like a lot of bureaucracy to little benefit. signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Deceased inventorEdit

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

Kobe JonesEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Kobe Jones

May 7Edit

Minor characters associated with QuidditchEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Minor characters associated with Quidditch

Fortnite MonopolyEdit

Delete; not mentioned at the target. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LABLEAKLIKELYEdit

Wikipedia shortcut promoting a fringe theory (per WP:PROFRINGE). The essay can stay but we shouldn't amplify it this way. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose/Keep If you delete this, then WP:NOLABLEAK should be deleted as well. Delete both, or keep both - but it's not right to delete one and keep the other. — Ched (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (Author of the essay here). I would note that WP:NOLABLEAK contains the author's personal opinions about Donald Trump, yet does have a shortcut. Additionally WP:NOLABLEAK is stating as a factual matter "there was no lab leak", not merely that as a matter of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia articles should say that the lab leak hypothesis does not have widespread support. The former position is stronger than the position that any Wikipedia article takes, while the latter agrees with my essay perfectly. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: I would like to discuss Ched's WP:OTHERSTUFF idea of deleting WP:NOLABLEAK as well. Imagine that someone created a couple of essays that supported fringe theories with the following redirects to them: WP:VACCINESCAUEAUTISM and WP:COVIDIDOESNOTEXIST. Would we have keep them or also delete any redirects that went to essays arguing against the fringe theories? How about my essay at WP:YWAB? would we have to delete that redirect if we wanted to delete a WP:THEHOLOCAUSTISAMYTH redirect to an essay supporting holocaust denial? I don't think so. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Fringe is a spectrum. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
If Fringe is a spectrum, then you are way over in left field. Virtually no scientists and only a few other publications support the Wuhan Lab Leak theory.
Reviews by scientists

Reviews by scientists:

Other reviews:

Related Wikipedia pages:

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This article[8] does not treat scientists who are open to the LL hypo as nutcases. That would not happen with holocaust deniers. And why bring up Yan? My essay doesn't. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Without commenting on the merits of the nominated redirect yet (I haven't made my mind up about it), I agree with Guy regarding WP:NOLABLEAK. If there were multiple shortcuts to the same essay, then discussing all of them at the same time would likely make sense, but these redirects point to different targets with very different levels of community acceptance. This means it is quite likely that people will recommend different actions for them and/or have different rationales for their recommendations, that would lead to a more complicated discussion and make a no-consensus or even trainwreck outcome more likely (which helps nobody). You are of course free to nominate WP:NOLABLEAK for discussion if you want at any time (as long as you are not doing so just to make a WP:POINT), it's just such a discussion should be separate from this one and about that redirect's own merits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Putting an official Wikipedia label on a personal essay on a fringe theory? Nope, not even close to proper.
The existence of WP:NOLABLEAK is irrelevant here: if you have a problem with that redirect, either get consensus on what you think the target should say or nominate WP:NOLABLEAK for deletion. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both (but, you know, especially this one). Both are inappropriate projectspace shortcuts. But another question: WP:Wikipedia is not your COVID Truth blog? Does [more or less] "and that's why Wikipedia gets the facts wrong" about any random topic legitimate random opinions? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete for Guy (and Guy Macon) reasons. Such things simply do not belong here. Put it on Facebook or somewhere, this is an encyclopedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Not suitable for this redirect, as it's a personal essay performing no WP:PAG-aligned function that could further the Project, but instead promotes conspiracist ideas and bashes Wikipedia ("Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics") in rather a silly way. For these reasons the essay itself should probably be deleted too per WP:NOTWEBHOST, but that's a different discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:ESSAY is clear that essays are not required to agree with consensus. Furthermore, suppose that there is a systematic problem with Wikipedia policy that results in Wikipedia routinely describing true propositions as false. If that turns out to be the case, would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to be made aware of it? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge, not any particular editor's notion of The Truth™ - for obvious reasons. Anyway, I suggest you save those argument for the likely upcoming WP:MFD. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: Exactly as acceptable as any other projectspace all-caps shortcut for a userspace essay; I wouldn't mind deprecating them totally, but as long as they exist, this is fine. Honestly, I've read less coherent ones with them. The "why don't you nominate WP:NOLABLEAK?" is the wrong way to think about it, as the actual way to change precedent here would be an RfC about userspace essay shortcuts. Discussion on the merits of the essay itself are an MfD matter. Vaticidalprophet 20:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As disagreeable as I find the essay, I find myself more in agreement with Ched here. I'm unfortunately unable to justify the deletion of this redirect, especially as an RfC on a similar content decision found no consensus (although it did not ask whether a lab leak was 'likely', rather whether it's a conspiracy theory or a minority scientific opinion, but redirect shortcuts not being titled strictly accurately has never stopped us before). If folks want to MfD the essay go ahead. But there's plenty of WP: essay shortcuts to essays I think are complete rubbish and we don't delete those. I don't see why this is different. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    BTW I don't agree with the WP:VACCINESCAUEAUTISM argument. If its content was actually trying to promote that idea it would be MfD'd immediately and promptly deleted, with people also combing the history of the author with the goal of sanctions. And probably rightly so. But it wouldn't be the shortcut that's inherently the problem, it'd be the essay. Similarly, if you want to target this essay, go to MfD and make your case under WP:NOTOPINION or WP:NOTESSAY or take your pick of other relevant policies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both Contentious userspace essays like these don't need mainspace links. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Profringe seeming written to only make a point. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just want to point out that the essay does make a point about Wikipedia policy (truth vs. WP:V) in its conclusion. You can agree or disagree with the policy assertion it is making, but the fact that it does relate to policy is indisputable. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it is a point addressed by Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#"But I know the truth!". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, given enough time and examples, it may be possible to show that the way we interpret WP:V systematically leads to wrong answers in some cases. If that is in fact true, it would be interesting to know. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    How would we find that out? By comparing Wikipedia articles with what reliable sources say? That would be an application of WP:V, so that approach would refute itself. By comparing Wikipedia articles with... truth? As defined by... your opinion? This whole thing is not feasible in practice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    There are two related questions here: First of all, I'm asserting that WP:V, together with current interpretation of WP:RS, producing wrong answers in a way that can be predicted. Given enough time and examples, this is a provable proposition. To prove it would require a record of correct predictions that fly in the face of WP:V and WP:RS as currently interpreted. To get a record of such predictions, the first step is to make one, which I've done in this essay. The second question is -- is there a policy change that would help? I don't know the answer to that. To get there, we would have to be willing to look at the examples that demonstrate the answer to the first question. And that will take time. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    A record of correct predictions would not be enough. You would need also need a record of incorrect predictions, otherwise it is cherrypicking. Then you need to compare both and analyze professionally whether the crystal ball you used is better than random guessing. If it is, then WP:CRYSTALBALL could be amended to say that your crystal ball is one that can be used. But this would need lots of data, and even if it worked, I think it would change the nature of Wikipedia in a way it is not Wikipedia any more. Anyway, this is highly hypothetical, and it does not sound very realistic. It should be done somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete the shortcut. While I support allowing the userspace essay to be kept, the projectspace shortcut SLOGANWORD is too much. It is a disputed essay, which means it should only be referenceable by a user link. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep on procedural grounds, with no objection to a bundled nomination with WP:NOLABLEAK. At this point, it's just absurd flailing. jp×g 02:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete too editorial for a project-space redirect. WP:NOLABLEAK is different enough I don't think a bundled nomination would help. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    The less inflammatory LABLEAKPOSSIBLE might be OK. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete; user essays strongly at variance with policy (e.g. WP:HOAX, WP:MEDRS, and WP:SOAP) should not be dignified with projectspace redirects. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Roti pitaEdit

No mention of roti at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy G5 Useless redirect combining two types of bread together created by a globally locked sockpuppet of a LTA. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Vyond redirectsEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Vyond redirects

PalantirEdit

Palantir Technologies has a 10:1 pageviews ratio over the current target and is well-known simply as Palantir. A dab page seems more appropriate than a primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree that the "fictional magical artefact" should not be considered the primary topic here, but when I proposed retargeting last year the consensus was to keep. But a dab wasn't really discussed much then, so maybe? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe that Palantir Technologies is the primary topic, but chose to propose it this way since WP:NOPRIMARY is probably an easier argument to win. A compromise. 162 etc. (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Those arguments (and that entire discussion) revolved around whether Palantir Technologies is the primary topic. I'm not trying to make that argument. This discussion is about whether Palantír is not the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
And I believe it is the primary topic, for reasons including those I referenced above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Having not been around for that original discussion, allow me to retort here.
  • Paine Ellsworth shared a concern: "I think it's more important for the typable redirect to target the base-name title with the diacritical mark per WP:DIACRITICS than it would be to adhere to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT."
→This goes against WP:SMALLDETAILS. Rose doesn't redirect to Rosé, just to name one example.
  • AngusWOOF had this to say: "The company is named after the fictional item. (...) Kind of like arguing that Apple Computer should be primary topic over Apple because it has a lot more pageviews in searches."
→ a) This is specifically shown to be incorrect reasoning per WP:DPT: "Being the original source of the name is also not determinative. Boston, Massachusetts is the primary topic for Boston, not the English town from which it took its name."
→ b) Using the Apple/Apple Computer comparable is misplaced here. I doubt that anybody can make the argument that a plot device in a work of fiction has the same long-term significance as an apple.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC asks us to consider usage and long-term notability when determining a primary topic. "Palantír" fails the first, and possibly both of those criteria. Therefore, Palantir should become a disambiguation page, as per WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. My argument is the same as in the previous discussion linked above, regardless of how invalid per WP:SMALLDETAILS another editor believes it to be. I think that SMALLDETAILS is trumped by both the WP:DIACRITICS naming convention and the WP:TSC policy. It is more important to have a redirect that can be typed on a standard keyboard to target any title with special characters that cannot be typed on a keyboard. So for search purposes, it is very important that the keyboard-friendly "Palantir" continues to redirect to "Palantír". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • A diacritic doesn't automatically make it the primary topic. If I am looking for the footballer Bebé and type "Bebe", I get the dab page at Bebe. If I am looking for the French city of Mâcon and type "Macon", I get the dab page at Macon. Why should this be different? 162 etc. (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
      • There are always exceptions to policy, but we do try to adhere to policy and community consensus whenever possible. Citing instances of WP:IAR is not a good reason to IAR. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I am not suggesting that we ignore rules. I think the rules should be followed, specifically those at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ASTONISH. Redirecting to a diacritic cannot apply if the title is ambiguous, as it is in this case, or in the examples I named above (of which there are many more, certainly not an exception.) 162 etc. (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or Retarget per 162 etc., who seems to present a pretty compelling argument. It did strike me as weird that so many people piled on based on WP:DIACRITICS, which I'd never seen used as a trump card before. But then I don't spend much time at RfD... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you use just part of a company's common name, it's your own fault if you end up somewhere you don't expect; Coke is a disambiguation page, not an article about the soft drink company, and Ireland covers the island, not the sovereign state that's most commonly called "Republic of Ireland". How many people remember that there's a í in the correctly spelled name, especially since many (all?) printings of The Lord of the Rings don't use that spelling? And of those who do remember, how many (1) remember that it's ALT+0237 and (2) are able to type that conveniently? I had a hard time typing it here because my browser keeps wanting to leave this screen when I hit the character sequence. Finally, the only evidence given by the nominator is pageviews, but as noted in the previous discussion, a significant share of those seeking the company will use its full name; you can't assume that the typical person arriving at the fictional object article via this redirect was intending to end up at the company article. This is particularly significant among the large population who rely on auto-suggested results from the search bar; if I'm using that feature (which I don't normally) to search for the company, I'll pick the longer form of the name ("Palantir Technologies") rather than something shorter, in case there's something else with a similar name. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue that "Palantir Technologies" is not the company's common name, but that the article is at that title as a result of WP:NATURAL. A Google search for "Palantir" will reveal that the company is most commonly known by that single word (and will also confirm that the fictional device is nowhere near the top of the search results.) Using Palantir as a redirect to Palantír is a primary redirect; no evidence has been presented so far as to why it should be the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
"Palantir Technologies" is definitely not the company's common name. It's Palantir. Even the most cursory of searches shows that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've created Palantir (Middle-earth) as a redirect, for the benefit of all who may not easily be able to type "í". 162 etc. (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. It seems to me that the "keep" opinions above are getting led astray by focussing on the degree of similarity between the redirect and the titles of the two potential targets. That's not relevant. The question is if there is a primary topic for "Palantir", and I can see as defensible two positions: that there is no primary topic or that the primary topic is the company. The company dominates usage in sources (not just web, but books too, and by a large margin), it has been around for a long time (so no wiggle room for arguments about recentism), and it does appear to be what the majority of readers seek (the link in the hatnote at Palantír was followed 1,800 times in March). – Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Palantir Technologies as the primary topic. Disambiguate if needed as compromise/much better than nothing. Same argument as last October's discussion: an order of magnitude more page views. The magical item is not the primary topic by any measure. czar 03:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Palantir Technologies per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The company is generally just referred to as "Palantir", not "Palantir Technologies", and the vast majority of usages of "Palantir" refer to the company and not the fictional artifact. I don't see how considerations based on diacritics overrule this. A disambiguation page would be my second choice. Hut 8.5 16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Villa PlinianaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

El TacoEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Other lists of Catholic saintsEdit

  • List of Catalonian saints
  • List of Scandinavian saints
  • List of saints from Africa
  • List of saints from Asia
  • List of Central American and Caribbean saints
  • List of South American saints

Only concerns the Catholic Church, so these redirects should be deleted Veverve (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Bundled nominations with exact same rationale. Veverve could you please bundle these types of nominations in the future? There's no need to add each one of these separately. CycloneYoris talk! 01:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Object the original pagemoves were undiscussed, and as I have pointed out on the proposer's talk page may well be disputed. I have already undone one for reasons given at Talk:List of Cornish saints. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @DuncanHill: List of Cornish saints removed from the list, it was a mistake from me. All other articles always start by saying they only concern the Catholic Church, yet are called "List of X Saints". It does not matter that other Churches incidentally recognise some of those people as saints, it is a list of those that the RC Church considers as saints. Veverve (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @The Discoverer: So, if I understand correctly, according to you it is better to have pages called "List of X saints" which contains only Catholic saints and blessed people, than having pages called "List of X Catholic saints and blessed people" which contains only Catholic saints and blessed people. I do not follow your logic. Veverve (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the level of precision is unnecessary. In 99% of the cases, the regions or countries have no saints other than Catholic saints. On the other hand the new names are not completely precise, because most of the pages include venerables and servants of God too, but the title only says saints and beatified people. The new titles are neither concise nor precise. Therefore it makes sense to have concise titles like List of saints of X. The Discoverer (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@The Discoverer: So what? There are Eastern, Oriental and Anglican Orthodox saints for all those places, e.g. Category:Polish saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Southern Africa), Category:Coptic Orthodox saints (almost all are Africans), EO North American Saints. Do not forget that the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans share almost all the same saints which have been declared as such before 1084. By the way, how is "Saint" a concise version of "saints, beatified and servants of God"? Moreover, a "servants of God" is always a saint, so having it in the title is redundant. Veverve (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
A servant of God is not always a saint. The stages of canonisation are: Servant of God -> Venerable -> Blessed -> Saint.
Only a few of those places have non-Catholic saints and the titles can be disambiguated for those places, no need to complicate all the titles where it is not necessary.The Discoverer (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

*Keep title It might make more sense to look at the bigger picture before changing anything. The List of Mexican Catholic saints and beatified people is a perfectly legitimate title. And adding other people to these pages of lists of saints who are not sainted or yet beatified, e.g. venerables, etc., is perfectly fine as well. This is how it's done in the Catholic Church. Catholics and the clergy and religious communities like monks and nuns all nominate and promote their own members long before the Vatican is willing to take a second look. Padre Pio, for example, was very well known in the Catholic community as someone known for healing the sick and helping those in need long before he was considered for sainthood. So adding these people to any page is perfectly fine. And as far as Mexican saints, or any of the other pages for that matter, accommodates how things really work in the Catholic world from everything I've read on that particular page. I really don't think there is a need for some type of precision when discussing something as non-concise as Catholic saints. This particular page really does cover what someone searching for information on Mexican saints would be looking for. It isn't just saints and adding the beatified people makes it more likely someone searching for information would be more likely to take a look. It made me look. Bodding (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Revert pagemoves. For all of these locations, the Catholic church is by far the dominant recogniser of saints in the sense of "particularly holy person"; the term doesn't have significant usage for non-Christian religions (they have their own terminology, e.g. wali), you won't have lists of Protestant saints because of their common use to refer to all believers (and when they use it in the Catholic-like sense, it's for people who would appear on the Catholic lists), and none of these regions has a large population of Orthodox believers, let alone Orthodox saints; if articles exist for Orthodox saints from any of these places (e.g. the Americas), a hatnote could suffice. Plus, the nominator's new name for these pages has its own problem; it sounds like these are saints of the "Nationality Catholic" faith, and this can lead to confusion, e.g. if we had a list of English Catholic saints and beatified people, would it be English people who were Catholic saints, or people who were Anglo-Catholic saints (the former, but it could be confused with the latter), and the existing list of Polish Catholic saints could very easily be interpreted as being related to saints of Polish Catholicism (none of which is in communion with Rome), e.g. the Polish National Catholic Church. And finally, "list of saints of X" clearly focuses on geography, which isn't true of many of the new names, e.g. should "List of Breton Catholic saints and beatified people" be focused on Bretons (a Celtic people who lived there before the French) regardless of where they live, or should it be focused on people living in Brittany regardless of whether they're Bretons, or French, or anything else? Nyttend backup (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nyttend backup Not sure what you mean, but it seems the point of specifying the nation of origin of a Catholic saint is for the benefit of the Catholics in those countries. I don't see how anyone can be confused by a list of Mexican saints and other beatified people. It's a point of pride for people to see that and countries are always pushing for their own citizens of faith to be recognized. Katherine Drexel and Elizabeth Ann Seton are among the first in the United States, for example. I might be reading your comment wrong, but then I don't understand what the point of any of this is about. These are lists of saints. Whether the titles are expanded to add in 'beatified people' doesn't matter. Beatified means that particular person is on the path to sainthood. It's just a matter of time, and frankly money. Bodding (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Uh, what? I don't even understand what you're talking about. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Lists of Russian saintsEdit

  • Saints canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church
  • List of saints canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church
  • Sainthood in the Russian Orthodox Church
  • Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church

Only concerns the Russian saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not all Russian saints nor all saint canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, so these redirects should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Fixed incorrectly formatted nomination, and tagged redirects which didn't have an RfD tag. CycloneYoris talk! 05:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The articles were moved by the nominator without discussion. While I may agree with the new page title, those are reasonable redirects, and virtually all Russian saints are those cannonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. There's no policy-based reason for deletion. No such user (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Lists of Serbian saintsEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Lists of Serbian saints

May 6Edit

New Jersey ArenaEdit

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

Mary Ann BigheadEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

National Entertainment CommissionEdit

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

Burton and Elmer V. McCollum Residence Hall.Edit

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

Big HeadEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Season 8, 2016Edit

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

Vida (dog)Edit

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

QaumaniqEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

BiunnilliumEdit

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

Abolish Wales/Abolish ScotlandEdit

Delete as POINTY redirects to political parties currently in elections; these seem to have been created to allow the parties to be linked to under POV attack links. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete because of it being strange portions of a name (c.f. my essay, WP:FRIED) and because of its attack nature. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep both - "Abolish" is a common shorthand for national iterations of the "Abolish the [national legislature] Party", in the same way that "Tory" is shorthand for the Conservative Party, and how "GOP" is shorthand for the Republican Party. These are both plausible shorthand synonyms. WP:RNEUTRAL applies to the nominator's rationale - if these redirects are being used inappropriately that's not an issue with the title but with the editors who are abusing it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 11:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Ivanvector. "Abolish Scotland" is mentioned in the article, and "Abolish" is mentioned as a shorthand name of the Welsh party so "Abolish Wales" seems to also be a plausible search term since it is the "Abolish" party in Wales. A7V2 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neither party uses these to describe themselves (the Scottish party actually leans more torwards 'Abolish Holyrood'), and the only reason hits appear when they're Googled is either due to Wikipedia or to news articles having the words 'abolish' and 'Scotland/Wales' in them.
The argument that they are mentioned in the articles is weak - there is nothing there to verify that these are shortenings that are found in the real world. Plus, with the argument about the Tories and the GOP (both long-established mainstream political forces), there is a huge usage of those shortenings. The Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party was formed in 2015 and Abolish the Scottish Parliament Party in 2020, so there hasn't been a great deal of time for a single solid abbreviation of either to come about.
On another point, these parties are not affiliated with one another; such similar redirects make it seem like they are national branches of the same party (see Scottish and Welsh Conservatives).
My general feeling is that while these redirects could be plausible, the fact is that neither of the abbreviations are actually used anywhere (perhaps a little WP:TOOSOON). Gazamp (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I can see your point, but it's not necessarily a question of what they officially call themselves, and more about what people will search for; regardless of whether or not its an official abbreviation, people will think it's called "Abolish" (perhaps wrongfully so)--that's just how language works. I think a redirect would help clear up those readers' confusion or something. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Timrollpickering, can you elaborate on the nomination statement? What do you mean by "allow the parties to be linked to under POV attack links"? There are no incoming links right now besides notifications of this discussion (perhaps they were cleaned up). Despite the misleading grammar of the phrases, most of what I see at "abolish wales" -wikipedia and "abolish scotland" -wikipedia seems relevant. It's hard for me to see the harm. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

MJ (singer)Edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 14#MJ (singer)

Svea RikeEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Svea Rike

The creation of Nazo and Silver the hedgehogEdit

Unlikely search term. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - It spawned as a result of this AfD. The history needs to be preserved to keep attribution. Anarchyte (talkwork) 09:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete As no content from the original article appears to be currently mentioned in the article, therefore preserving attribution is meaningless.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WWAFAWDWG?Edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#WWAFAWDWG?

File:Rogers3.jpg.jpgEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Senate runoffEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Affine symmetryEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Template:Direct linkEdit

A pair of unused template redirects that were created to get around the consensus of a TFD discussion, and who's target is not intended to be used in the manner these redirects suggest. Template:Direct link was originally created by JsfasdF252 as a template that converted internal wikilinks into external links. This template was deleted following a TFD discussion here, basically on the basis that wikilinks should remain as wikilinks. After being deleted per the TFD consensus the template was recreated as a redirect to a template that could be misused to do the same thing, see the creation edit summary of Template:Direct link. Query link is supposed to be used for adding search strings to the end of a link (like &redirect=no or &action=history), but by passing it no parameters it can be used to do the same thing as the deleted Direct link template. I'm somewhat tempted to G4 these as an obvious attempt to get around the discussion at TFD, but I thought it better to bring these here for discussion 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete as/nearly as G4 [...] per the original TfD, wikilinks should not be obfuscated like this. I would call it G4 in spirit—although the redirect is not identical at a technical level, it does something that has been decided against quite firmly at TfD. Doesn't actually have to be speedy-deleted though, normal deletion is fine. User:GKFXtalk 16:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC) (edited 19:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC) per below comments on G4.)
  • Don't G4 as that criterion very obviously does not apply - the pages deleted were templates and these are redirects. The WP:CSD#G4 criterion explicitly excludes pages that are not "substantially identical" to the deleted page, a redirect is not substantially identical to a template, and these redirects have not been previously discussed. There is no provision in the criterion for pages created to circumvent a deletion rationale, although such creations may be disruptive and/or WP:POINT violations those are not speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf I suppose it depends how you interpret "sufficiently identical" when applied to templates - is it the implementation that matters or the output? I wasn't sure which is why I brought it here. If a template is sent to TFD and consensus is to delete it would a recreation as a LUA module with identical input, functionality and output fall under G4? In this case the actual functionality of the template is the same as the redirect - it converts wikilinks to formatted external links i.e. it changes Foo to Foo. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      I imagine a LUA module that was a recreation of a deleted template and had no additional functionality would be a G4 candidate (although it might depend on why the template was deleted). For redirects the consensus is that both the title of the redirect and the target of the redirect need to be almost identical to a redirect discussed at RfD to qualify. A redirect and a template are two very different things, and the question being asked here is not "should a template that does this exist" but "are these redirects to this other template (which presumably does have consensus to exist) useful?". Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      The answer to that question is that these redirects suggest that converting wikilinks to external links is an approved thing to do. The title "Querylink" makes it clear that you are only supposed to use it with a query string whereas "direct" and "static" do not imply that restriction. User:GKFXtalk 19:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      Thryduulf Are they that different though? A thought experiment if you will - a user creates a "Cite Breitbart News" template by slightly modifying a copy of "Cite web", let's say they remove a couple of parameters. The template is sent to TFD where it is deleted on the basis that since Breitbart News is a depreciated source it is inappropriate to have a specialised citation template. The editor then recreates "Cite Breitbart News" as a redirect to cite web. From a functionality perspective the behaviour of the two is identical - they have the same template name, they take the same template parameters and they produce the same output, but one is implemented as a template and one is implemented as a redirect. So does the redirect qualify for G4 deletion? That's basically the situation with this redirect - community consensus was against a template at TFD so they've repurposed another template to do the same thing even though it wasn't intended to be used in that manner. I think it's quite a complex question and the answer is far from obvious.
      In terms of "is this redirect of any use" the answer is no IMO as the name is misleading - query link is designed to be used in a small number of situations where you need to generate a link with specific query parameters appended to the end - it was used extensively before pages like Special:History and Special:Edit were added to mediawiki, when the only way of creating links to edit a page was to manually create the URL with the "&action=edit" added to the end. It is not supposed to be used to mass replace wikilinks as the editor was doing in edits like these [9], [10], [11], [12] as doing this breaks literally everything (e.g. visualeditor, "what links here", database reports, skins, user scripts, bots, custom css ...) and offers no advantages. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      "I think it's quite a complex question and the answer is far from obvious." You've answered your own question here - if something is not obvious then it is not eligible for speedy deletion - per the lead of WP:CSD "Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."
      As for the general principal, it is very clear that redirects and templates are very different things and so a TfD can not be used to delete a redirect under G4 in any circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per the previous TfD (but I agree G4 doesn't apply). * Pppery * it has begun... 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, since the redirect names don't seem to fit the template, and trout the nominator for a grossly inappropriate G4 suggestion. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Stephen 1 of hugaryEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

SafeRideEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:EDITCONCENSUSEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Template:R to caEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2007 Trolley Square shooting, Salt Lake CityEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las VegasEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas

Glacial retreatEdit

This used to redirect to glacial motion, which is logical - instead of going to a article about a specific geologic period. But Retreat of glaciers since 1850 is a FA and has more on the subject that the old target. On top of that, glacial motion links to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - so maybe it is better to just go straight there unless/until glacial motion is improved. Another option is to make glacier retreat (disambiguation) the PT, but I'm not sure that is more helpful. The dab also needs to be fixed, because its currently written as if glacial retreat is the PT. MB 01:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Another factor to consider is that I initially interpreted the redirect to mean a resort among glaciers. So ambiguous stuff here. J947messageedits 01:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Bundled a related redirect. J947messageedits 01:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Glacial motion, and adjust the hatnote there to specify Retreat of glaciers since 1850 as a likely alternative target. BD2412 T 02:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Lots of ambiguity here. Possibly also look at redirect to Glacier mass balance as that explains the process of both glacier retreat and advance.--MONGO (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I changed the redirects. Even though it is a natural phenomenon that has always happened, right now the research focus is the current retreat caused by global warming. It is a similar case to climate change, which refers to the current change. Vpab15 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have created a move request at Talk:Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Requested_move_7_May_2021 since I believe the primary topic is the current retreat. Hopefully the discussion there will help determine what is the best target here. Vpab15 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep both, add {{for}}{{about}} hatnote to Glacier retreat (disambiguation) at target, and update dab page. Was about to say move current dab page to one of these pages, but I do think the since 1850 article is the primary topic. Glacial motion, Glacier mass balance, and something about glacier resorts/tourism should be added to the dab, but not sure what links that would involve. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
An {{about}} hatnote is probably better here. The dab page should definitely also include Deglaciation. Retargeting to deglaciation could also be considered, with appropriate links/hatnotes there. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep w/ hatnote clearly the site of current public attention, and should be the default link. Sadads (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Vpab15. I thought of climate change / warming too. I'm not so concerned with WP:RECENTISM if we're consider a geologic scale (!). --BDD (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ettan fotbollEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

May 5Edit

LeBron Witness ShirtEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Big 11Edit

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

Arcade tournamentEdit

Not mentioned at Arcade game or the recently split Arcade video game. The page history shows that this was just a spam page fifteen years ago. IceWelder [] 09:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of esports leagues and tournaments. Jay (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Esports per IP86. Ideal would be a single place specifically about arcade-game tournaments (electronic or otherwise). The esports history section has some of that. IP67 makes a fair point, but unless we have significant coverage, it's a hypothetical concern. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Esports per 86 IP and BDD. CycloneYoris talk! 09:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Corporate mediaEdit

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

I think we should have another discussion about this. The first RfD closed with preference to send the recently-redirected article to AfD. The AfD closed as delete, but a few days later, the redirect was re-created. So here we are again. Last time the redirect was targeted to concentration of media ownership, this time it is targeted to media conglomerate. I think this target is better than the last one, but still not "right" IMO. My opinion is that Wikipedia should have something on the topic, whether a redirect, dab page, or stub. I might be leaning towards a dab page.

As an aside, I'm not comfortable with how this situation was procedurally handled. I think that it would have been better to at first discuss the merits of the redirect at RfD and if a consensus to delete occurred, it would be sent to AfD. That said, the old article due to its importance probably should've been discussed at AfD. I don't know really, but it seems wrong to end up back at RfD again. J947messageedits 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I created this redirect today. As the deleted article was apparently very old I think it is important to put something at that title, and the current target seemed to be the best of two options discussed at the AfD. A disambiguation page would also be an excellent idea. I've got no strong views on the final outcome, just that it shouldn't be left empty. User:GKFXtalk 20:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Computer gameEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikidata redirectsEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Plantation Workers' CongressEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Boston MisunderstandingEdit

This does not seem to be an attested alternative name for the Boston Massacre. The only relevant hits I found while searching were satirical (eg: [13]). -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete seems like a joke redirect.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. If there are satirical references, like the one linked, then this may be of use to readers who are looking up the reference to figure out what it's talking about. Tamwin (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
If it’s just one I don’t think it’s enough to keep this.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
It isn't the only reference though: [14] plus another one I can't add because it's on the spam blacklist. Now, admittedly, that's not a ton, which is why it's a weak keep. Tamwin (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - if the satirical work cannot establish that it's satirizing the Boston Massacre, it's not our job to do it for them. I recall that in the Futurama episode All the Presidents' Heads, in which the characters inadvertently alter the past so that England quashed the American Revolution (which was then called the "colonial dust-up", and North America becomes "West Britannia"), there were other references to important historic events with politely neutered English names, and one of those may have been the "Boston misunderstanding". But that's pretty obscure trivia; our article on the episode doesn't mention it, and neither does The Infosphere. The page has one hit in the 80-some days before the nomination. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Jose FractionEdit

Just a term used in the article. No search results or importance. - The9Man (Talk) 09:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Fixed malformed nomination, you need to specify the target of the redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 13:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I just used Twinkle. Thanks anyway. - The9Man (Talk) 14:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Jose faction". The name is a typo. The target article too needs to cleanup. Jay (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    Move to "Jose faction" and then Delete "Jose Fraction". Jay (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Renaming redirects is usually a bad idea. J947messageedits 05:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Wow! I can keep going over this for hours and still not be wiser: If a redirect page does not redirect to the page it would need to be redirecting to, then the only viable strategy that respects page histories is to adapt the redirect on that page, without moving the page. Jay (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Moving redirects is pretty much benefitless. Just create a new redirect. J947messageedits 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Moving preserves page history. Jay (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Moving confuses page history. And there's not that much to preserve. J947messageedits 23:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    I have cleaned up the target article and replaced fraction with faction everywhere. Jay (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment fraction (politics) redirects to parliamentary group, though I can't tell whether it's a WP:FORRED or what. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:StrnumberEdit

Unused template redirects User:GKFXtalk 11:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Strong keep spelling variation, and expected that function names should be singular, at least to search it out -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Duplicate text by both me and 67.70 merged — User:GKFXtalk 18:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • There is a convention among these functions to start them with Str_ rather than just Str, in the interests of readability: see Template:String-handling templates. While it's not perfectly consistent it does mean that these redirects are less useful, and as can be seen no-one has transcluded them. User:GKFXtalk 18:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • They look like other programming/macro language forms for these functions, so good for WP:RKEEP searching for these templates. Being unused isn't a specific WP:RDELETE; and generally redirects are WP:CHEAP, so I think these two should remain if there's no other reason to delete them -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as unused templates (if people were actually using them, then sure, but they're not. We should really have a form of PROD for this). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • It's a redirect, not a template, and the template itself is used. Unused redirects are not a defined deletion criterion for redirects -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Page mergeEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Power armor in WarhammerEdit

There is no mention of power armour in the target article. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I know the history of this. Many years ago, in the page on Power armor, there was a detailed discussion about how it is used in the one case. I created a page called Power Armor in Warhammer, moved the details, and left a summary and link in the Power Armor article. I suspect that, in the years since, someone folded that into the general Warhammer page, and put in a redirect. Then someone must have updated the Warhammer page. I have no opinion about what the Warhammer page should contain. My only interest had been cleaning up the Power Armor page. Stuart Strahl (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I figured out what happened here. You split the warhammer 40,000 material out of the power armour article and put it in a separate page during cleanup. The content was then merged into a general article on warhammer 40,000 equipment at Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000). This page was then moved to Equipment of the Imperium, then Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000, under which title it was deleted in 2011 following the AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. For some reason a bot had retargeted this redirect to the main Warhammer 40,000 article in 2010, so this was missed for G8 deletion when cleaning up after the article deletion. Either way the content in the page history has been through AfD (I think), the article the redirect is supposed to be targeting hasn't existed for a decade and the current target doesn't include anything relevant, so I think this can be deleted. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Cote webEdit

Orphaned typo redirect with 2 pageviews; implausible to touch type ({{Vopr ern}} is a more likely typo) Dudhhr (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Redirect#K5. When I created it, there was at least one transclusion, which violated the guideline at WP:REDNOT and clutters up reports like Special:WantedTemplates. The existence of such a transclusion demonstrates that it is a plausible typo (the letter "o" is one letter away from "i" on the keyboard). The documentation at {{R from misspelling}} says: Use this rcat template in any namespace. The template is orphaned because at least one editor regularly fixes transclusions of redirects that are typos based on this report and other pages like it. It should be trivial for a bot to fix transclusions of templates that are tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, if having them around is a problem. RFD closer: Please note that I have cited multiple guidelines in my !vote. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Actual policy says A) to create redirects for likely misspellings, and "one person did this once in 21 years" isn't evidence of that; and B) mildly discourages redirects in templatespace compared to other namespaces. You also seem to be very confused about where the guidelines come from. —Cryptic 03:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Can you please provide a link to this policy? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Created in response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news. Implausible typo not in use on any page. No more useful than previously deleted examples such as {{ctie book}} (deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#Template:Ctie book). Such misspellings should be corrected at source not via redirect to prevent confusion (reason for deletion #2) and avoid the risk of making it unreasonably difficult (reason for deletion #1) for bots, automated systems and searches to deal effectively with templated citations. DrKay (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G3 as this was very obviously created to make a point about a deletion discussion the creator disagreed with, and serves no other purpose. Delete on its own merit per DrKay and per the previous discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute news. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Also, propose that Jonesey95 be topic-banned from creation of redirects in any namespace. The solution to one typo transclusion "clutter[ing] up reports like Special:WantedTemplates" is to correct the single typo, not create a whole new redirect with its attendant maintenance issues just for a single error. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Please strike this bad faith accusation immediately. I have provided a link showing that this typo was trancluded at the time of its creation, and I have provided links to guidelines and documentation showing why I created it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, this might fall under WP:R3 as a recently created implausible typo. Creating a redirect for a single use typo is just silly - if there are 1 or two transclusions of a misspelled template then the obvious solution is to fix those transclusions, rather than making a load of redirects for every possible typo of "Cite web". 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete typo redirects are for the benefit of readers, not editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete If an editor writes {{cote web| then they should see a red link as this allows them to fix their mistake promptly. The existence of this redirect hides the mistake and leaves it for someone else to clean up. While this redirect is a "plausible typo" it is not actually useful. User:GKFXtalk 23:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Patrice SyntheaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chris CandelariaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

May 4Edit

Be urutanEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Be urutan

Template:Banner shellEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Template:Cite jorunalEdit

Created in response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news. Implausible typo not in use on any page. No more useful than previously deleted examples such as {{ctie book}} (deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#Template:Ctie book). Such misspellings should be corrected at source not via redirect to prevent confusion (reason for deletion #2) and avoid the risk of making it unreasonably difficult (reason for deletion #1) for bots, automated systems and searches to deal effectively with templated citations. DrKay (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There is a significantly higher bar for utility of typo redirects in template space than article space, and this does not meet that bar. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Redirect#K5. When I created it, there was at least one transclusion, which violated the guideline at WP:REDNOT and clutters up reports like Special:WantedTemplates. The existence of such a transclusion demonstrates that it is a plausible typo. The documentation at {{R from misspelling}} says: Use this rcat template in any namespace. It should be trivial for a bot to fix transclusions of templates that are tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, which would address the nominator's valid reasons #1 and #2 above. RFD closer: Please note that I have cited multiple guidelines in my !vote. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: Ain't doing us any harm to have it. pbp 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete typo redirects are for the benefit of readers, not editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete easier and better to fix the typo instead of creating template redirect; will also tell editors in preview that the template is redlinked Dudhhr (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the reasons mentioned above. --Bsherr (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

HomePageEdit

This page has been listed on the RfD twice. However, I still feel that this redirect may not have the best target. Although this is a historical name of the Main Page, some wikis don't have it, e.g. zh:HomePage. Yet fr:HomePage gives a different target. To maintain the "See the current version of this page on Wikipedia" on wp.nost, special code could be used to link to Main Page instead. I'm not sure what to do with this redirect. 54nd60x (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose - the main page of wikipedia seems like clearly the most likely place someone typing "Home Page" would be looking to go. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget. In the 2020 discussion I wrote "While we should always be careful not to break links, especially old links, unnecessarily we do need to balance that with accessibility of current uses. In this specific case there is a hatnote at home page leading to the main page but one in the other direction would not be appropriate, so the balance imo is clearly in favour of the retargetting.". In the 2012 discussion I !voted to retarget per an ip editor who wrote "simple and clear {{R from alternate capitalization}}, and we already have a hatnote on the page to point to Wikipedia's entry point. Clearly we have an encyclopedic topic for that title, and the main page is not encyclopedic content (which is why some other language wikipedias have moved it into portalspace) ; It hasn't been the main page since 2001, the only year it was the main page.". Nothing has changed in the past 8½ years or the past 1 year to change my mind - readers will still better served by arriving at Home page with a hatnote to the main page than the main page with no link to the encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lee Vilenski: I'm not sure about keeping this redirect. For example, Home is the name of the main page on foundation.wikimedia.org, and that doesn't give us a reason to use it as the name of our home page. However, Main Page is the current name of our main page, and on almost every wiki, it redirects to the main page on their wiki, or otherwise it's the name of their main page. Homepage redirects to Home page, but HomePage with an uppercase P redirects to Main Page? I know this is for historical reasons, but both should target to the same page, and it doesn't make too many sense to have two nearly identical titles pointing to different pages. 54nd60x (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for mushy historical reasons as well as a lack of need. When you type in "Home page" in the search bar , the camel case version is the 5th(!) result down, and is not bolded. Indeed, the properly-capitalized Home page gets ~900 views a day, whereas the camel case HomePage gets less than 100 views a day, presumably those going down Wikipedia memory lane.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • For those unaware, "HomePage" was the name of the main page of Wikis using UseModWiki, which included the English Wikipedia from January 2001 to January 2002. It's in camel case because that's how things were done back in those days. The reason some "emotion" is involved in the matter is because the page contains the very first edit to Wikipedia, which was used back when it was Wikipedia's main page. Therefore, the current target is the most historically accurate, as well as the relative obscurity of concept of other websites' home pages that doesn't justify a retarget IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • But why should Homepage redirect to Home page then? 54nd60x (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per the keep arguments in the prior RfD's, John M Wolfson's comments above - and really the lack of any problem or pressing need to retarget this. — xaosflux Talk 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per John M Wolfson. This *was* the main page once, so it seems reasonable for it still to redirect there, given that no readers are being harmed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • In the previous discussion, I said:

    Retarget The time to care about nineteen-year-old (!) history to this extent passed long ago. What matters now is what the most logical target for "HomePage" is, and home page, which already has a hatnote to Main Page, seems clearly more logical. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

    Nothing has changed since other than it now being twenty-year-old history, and I still feel that the redirect should be retargeted. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that HomePage may not be best to be redirected to Main Page without a hatnote, but with that said, I do want to mention an example: Main Page is not the best name for our main page, but it's still used without a hatnote as that has stuck for a really long time. But how significant is the use of HomePage? wp.fr and wp.zh don't use it the way we do, but I do believe that this history should be preserved. 54nd60x (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    Well for one, the phrase "HomePage" is clearly in English - so that French and Chinese projects don't use it isn't really something that concerns me. — xaosflux Talk 18:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Look, I know we prefer to pretend that we don't care about the ancient history of the project, but who are we kidding? This page was the main page back in 2001, and keeping it as a pointer to that page retains that history. If you want the very serious justification that pretends we're emotionless robots, there may still be a link somewhere that assumes that HomePage points at the main page. Tamwin (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    We do care about old history, but we cannot let it get in the way of the needs of today. In this case we can maintain the link to the history with a hatnote at Home page - which already exists. This is also how we manage every other redirect we retarget when there is (or even might be) the possibility of incoming external links. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'd agree if I thought that someone was likely to use camelcase. That's pretty unlikely though. In this specific case, I think the historical value of maintaining the redirect's target outstrips the (negligible) value of changing it. Tamwin (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget "homePage" to Home page, which is where such a WP:CAMELCASE redirect should point to. The topic of homepage is home page, and it already contains a hatnote to the Wikipedia Main Page frontpage. If this is not retargetted, the main page needs a hatnote to the encyclopedic topic of a "homepage" -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Experiment - Turn this into a two entry DAB page with tracking redirects. This is still getting around 1000 page views a month, but we have no idea whether readers are coming from ancient links to the Wikipedia homepage, or whether they're searching for "home page" in a camel case format (after all, camel case is very commonly used in programming). If we get a couple of months of data on where readers coming across this are actually intending to go then this would allow us to make an informed decision on where this should target. I'm not 100% on board with the "Keep for historical reasons" arguments either, while I'm all for preserving the history of the project and ancient pages but we should not be doing so in a manner that is confusing or disruptive for our readers, and retargeting a redirect is hardly erasing the history of the project. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I understand that retargeting HomePage may not reflect this project's history, but the redirect target is getting in the way of people who may be searching for the term "home page." There's no hatnote on the Main Page (and there shouldn't be.) Main Page has been the name of our main page for such a long time that moving it to a different page would disrupt our site, but HomePage has only been used in 2001 for not a long period of time. Who would type in "HomePage" in the full URL or search bar expecting the main page? 54nd60x (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: a harmless quirk, and testament to the project's history. I struggle to believe that this particular intonation of capitalisation and space is the cause of any confusion for users looking for the home page article. The only time I trip over redirects for varying capitalisation is when I seldomly type out an (presumed) article URL in my browser. Even in that strained circumstance, I doubt the user is likely to try camel-case. --Inops (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per my nomination in the 2020 discussion. We're not breaking things by retargeting, and considering that the main page is hatnoted at Home page, even user trying to find the main page from this will find the main page. Hog Farm Talk 17:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per 192.76.8.91. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not too sure about my opinion. I agree that the redirect should be kept to preserve our history, especially if it contains the first edit to our project. However, I also must note that we shouldn't let something like this get in the way of what our readers are looking for. "(Redirected from {{-r|HomePage)" isn't something that will get shown on the top of our main page, so it's harder to find the page. Retarget to Wikipedia:Main Page history#Appearance. 54nd60x (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Proposal would a retarget to Wikipedia:History of the Main Page work for people?  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    No, because it would not benefit either the majority of people looking for something at Home page nor those few looking for the main page. I would support adding it to the hatnote at Home page though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't retarget to projectspace but I'm fine with any of the other three options, probably slightly preferring a straight keep as is. There are many links to this redirect directed at the main page, so a place where it is easily accessible is ideal. Retargeting a common search term to projectspace is unhelpful when the search term is not related to editing Wikipedia. My stance in the last discussion hasn't change but for the slight increase in pageviews, which could really only be caused by a new link meant to target main page. I don't like harming readers' search, but there are links pointing to this redirect meant to direct clickers to the main page. So that's my argument against retargeting, I guess. J947messageedits 20:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Home page per above. This is a close spelling to the chosen target. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Home page. Sentimental about this being the old name for the Main Page? Make a hatnote linking to a project page about it. --Bsherr (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Bsherr and Thryduulf. This is a mainspace page, and home page is the more expected target, and there's no hatnote on the Main Page to point to there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep for this title's place in project history. As a camel-case title, this is not the page that comes up when you search "homepage" and hit enter. If someone does accidentally use this when they wanted Home page, it's not that hard to search again and find the correct page. User:GKFXtalk 07:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sleep with me, I'm not too youngEdit

Unhelpful, orphaned, puerile redirects created by since-permablocked editor. Delete. Lagrange613 05:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: G6, uncontroversial housekeeping. Clearly just vandalism Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    If it' "just vandalism", why not G3? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    18:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Come on guys, at least check if it actually is vandalism. It isn't. It's even been discussed on Wikipedia (here and here). It might still be best to delete, but definitely not speedy. J947messageedits 21:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Just because an IP discussed it in 2005, doesn't make it sensible, or at all appropriate as a redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Joseph2302: It doesn't, but the ip wasn't claiming they were. They said only that it indicated the redirects were not vandalism, which their evidence supports. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 09:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful, and would never rate either a mention on the pages themselves or indeed a dedicated page of their own.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the second: mentioned at Another One Bites the Dust#Alleged backward masking. The first is more difficult... maybe retarget to Backmasking? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the second as mentioned. The first one isn't even notable as a lyric. "My loneliness is killing me" would be more notable. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 19:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the 2nd because it's mentioned at its target; delete the 1st because it isn't. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete the first and Keep the second. I agree with other editors on the second one - as the whole paragraph in the target article discusses the phrase it should be kept as a plausible search term. Less Unless (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTGOOGLE+Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Template:Cute bookEdit

Created after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news. No more useful than {{cte bok}}, {{ctie book}}, etc. Such misspellings should be corrected at source not via redirect to prevent confusion (reason for deletion #2) and avoid the risk of making it unreasonably difficult (reason for deletion #1) for bots, automated systems and searches to deal effectively with templated citations. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Less useful than {{ctie book}}, since that's at least a plausible typo. ({{cte bok}} is a bit much, but {{cte book}} or {{cite bok}} in isolation would be plausible too.) This is not: unlike those, it's not the sort of typo a hunt-and-pecker might make, and a touch typist won't miss i->u without also doing o->i and k->j for {{cute biij}}. Besides which, most uses of {{R from misspelling}} (to which {{R from typo}} redirects) in the template namespace are to genuine misspellings, not typos, much more so than in mainspace; and the only other missplaced-fingers typo I'm seeing in there is {{cote web}}, itself less than a week old. Full list at quarry:query/54722. Delete. —Cryptic 11:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Cryptic and my comments at #Template:Cite jorunal. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Redirect#K5. When I created it, there was at least one transclusion, which violated the guideline at WP:REDNOT and clutters up reports like Special:WantedTemplates. The existence of such a transclusion demonstrates that it is a plausible typo (the letter "u" is one letter away from "i" on the keyboard). The documentation at {{R from misspelling}} says: Use this rcat template in any namespace. It should be trivial for a bot to fix transclusions of templates that are tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, which would address the nominator's valid reasons #1 and #2 above. RFD closer: Please note that I have cited multiple guidelines in my !vote. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sure, there are myriad typos people might make, but we don't have to make a redirect to cover every single one of them. That applies to project templates as much as to article titles. It's also a name which actually means something in itself, that has nothing to do with the template it redirects to, so there's extra reason not to have it hanging around distracting people.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Please note that I make redirects only to handle typos that people actually do make, per the link I provided above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Headbomb, I have explained the point of this redirect above, with links to relevant guidelines. If you have time, can you please elaborate on your argument here? Which of the guidelines that I linked to should be changed if this sort of redirect is pointless? I genuinely do not understand which part of the guidelines I am misunderstanding. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
What about {{vite journal}}? {{cire journal}}? {{citw journal}}? There's nothing special about {{cute book}}, and these unlikely typos just cause maintenance headaches down the line, and are just pointlessly WP:COSTLY. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I find this line of reasoning confusing. Redirects to templates have the same "cost" as redirects to articles. They both render intended content properly, even in the face of minor human fallibility, and both are detected and fixed by gnomes who monitor usages of pages that transclude {{R from misspelling}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fix transclusions and delete per Headbomb. The maintenance burden this could potentially cause down the road demonstrates potential harm from this. It's not like it's a search term - making a typo in here is going to be obvious; we don't need to plan for every conceivable error someone could make in attempting to produce a citation template. Hog Farm Talk 18:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete typo redirects are for the benefit of readers, not editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Elli: Can you please elaborate? If this redirect is deleted, readers will see Template:cute book in an article where this typo is made, instead of the content a properly rendered citation template. How does replacing content with jarring red text benefit readers? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jonesey95: editors will easily see the issue and fix it. We don't want errant Wikitext - the Wikitext of a page should be clear. This is the same reason we're not supposed to link to typo redirects - we don't want typos in articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Editors routinely fail to fix problems that they create. That is why Special:WantedTemplates exists, and why Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors exists, and why countless error-tracking categories exist. Gnomes monitor these reports and categories, cleaning up errors that other editors create and do not fix themselves. Between the time that the errors are created and the time they are fixed, redirects like this one create a better experience for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
          • @Jonesey95: fixing these should be the job of people who patrol Special:WantedTemplates, then. Obviously an easy gnomish fix. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Special:WantedTemplates is updated only once per month. You seem to be arguing that it is to the benefit of readers to see an ugly red link for a month or more instead of the template rendering as the errant editor intended until a gnome or bot arrives to quietly replace this redirect in the background. That argument is simply illogical. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as possibly a WP:POINTy response to the linked RfD. Dudhhr (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • This is a speculative assumption of bad faith; please retract it. As I have stated in other venues, I did not know about the linked RFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Typos occur in code and in prose. I think this solution to address the former only is excessive. --Bsherr (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Damien GottliebEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Damien SynertekEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

AwesometownEdit

Awesometown is a common nickname for Valencia, Santa Clarita, California and the adjacent unincorporated area of Valencia, California. It is also sometimes used to refer to Santa Clarita as a whole. Search "awesometown valencia" or "awesometown santa clarita" on Google or any other search engine for proof. Should be changed to disambiguation page. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Cross over basketballEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Template:Substr quickEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 14#Template:Substr quick

Template:Str sub old/anyEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 14#Template:Str sub old/any

May 3Edit

Shelley LutherEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sevmacs (ethnic group of North Macedonia)Edit

Recently created redirects from unsourced and unattested, potentially offensive neologisms. Fut.Perf. 19:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

BarackRollEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Template:Mets-Yankees rivalryEdit

Redirect was created after template moved to Template:Mets–Yankees rivalry, then the template was deleted and this redirect retargeted. Since Template:Mets–Yankees rivalry does not exist, neither should this redirect. No links or transclusions. Bsherr (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Fear the HuntersEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Fear the Hunters

Professional agrologistEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Restored article

Wild Wild West 2Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:MANDARINSEdit

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

Template:Str rtEdit

Unused, unclear template redirect. User:GKFXtalk 09:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  • keep spelling variation, as "str" is clearly abbreviation for "string", rt is clearly abbreviation for "right"; and a commonly used abbreviation for right. (indeed, some programming languages use RT instead of RIGHT) -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • As mentioned above the Str_ part is OK and fits a convention, it's the rt that I object to. I wouldn't expect people to search for rt if they meant "right", and it would not be that clear if part of template markup. User:GKFXtalk 18:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • RT is a common abbreviation for right, so I would think that some people would search this way, and it probably is a WP:CHEAP redirect as it is. RT is a recognized abbreviation for right [15] and found in some programming languages [16] ; so I think it is a reasoanble redirect and search term -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no similar redirect for Template:Str left, so I think this is more confusing than clarifying. --Bsherr (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Str rep allEdit

Unused template redirect. User:GKFXtalk 07:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep it does what it says, it is the complement to {{Str rep}} which allows replacement of all instances. Therefore it is useful in relation to the naming of the other function, "Str rep" atleast for searching -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was from before Lua modules, now not needed ({{Replace}} does the job and is well documented, also wrt number of replacements). Extra names is needlessly confusing. - (creator) DePiep (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that the relation to Template:Str rep makes the case for preserving the redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

TinklingEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 12#Tinkling

Damien MonteithEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Casio Value StoresEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cory Murphy (film producer)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

James Groening (film producer)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

James GroeningEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Data WestEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

DATA WESTEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

PG-13Edit

Target had been Motion Picture Association film rating system which is US only. New target does cover many countries, but it is sort-of a list article. Looking at PG-13 (disambiguation), I think that is a better "target", so I propose moving the dab to the base name. Note that PG13 already redirects to the dab. It makes sense that PG13/PG-13 go to the same place. MB 04:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I have no objections in principle to this but I have temporarily reverted the change, because the incoming links need to be addressed first. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/PG-13 shows, there are a substantial number of incoming links that clearly relate to the only the MPAA film rating. Facts707 was lazy in changing the redirect and not addressing the incoming links. Readers who follow this link expect exposition on the US film rating, since they are following links from articles about American films. I suggest a solution along the following lines:
  1. Move PG-13 to PG-13 (Motion Picture Association). This will mirror the solution at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R_rating_(Motion_Picture_Association)&redirect=no.
  2. This will create a double redirect that the Wikipedia software will automatically correct after a few days.
  3. Once the software fixes the double redirect then move PG-13 (disambiguation) to PG-13.
Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I have restored the redirect as it was, targets should not be changed while there is an open RFD. I also found there were only 100 articles involved and ran them through AWB to re-target those that were clearly about US rated motion pictures. Now there are only about a dozen left which should go to the dab. No need for the round-robin move discussed above. MB 15:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    I have restored the long-standing redirect. This redirect has redirected to Motion Picture Association film rating system since its creation 17 years ago, before it was altered earlier to day. I have restored this redirect because it affects all the incoming links. The discussion should come before changing the redirect, not after it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    You are confusing the situation. The target listed at the very top of this discussion is incorrect because you changed the target AFTER the discussion was started. This is not the correct procedure. MB 15:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    The procedure is to start the discussion before changing the link, not after. The change you are proposing is a no-brainer on your terms, because none of the incoming links should redirect to the new link. If there is to be a discussion it should be about the long-standing link, which is potentially a primary topic. I actually support your proposal but the discussion should be about the original link. Only two editors have responded so far so you can easily fix the proposal, or alternatively you can close it and start a new one. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • NOTE I believe this discussion is being conducted in poor faith. This is the sequence of events:
    1. This redirect was created in 2003 and until today has always redirected to Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#PG-13, because the MPA PG-13 rating was considered the primary topic for a long time. It had a substantial number of incoming links that explicitly referred to the MPA's PG-13 rating.
    2. Earlier today, this page was redirected to Motion picture content rating system without discussion, and without addressing all the incoming links.
    3. A discussion was started here by MB proposing the disambiguation page at PG-13 (disambiguation) is moved to the base name.
    4. I restored the redirect to the WP:STATUSQUO but this has been reverted by MB (see [17]) on the pretext of this discussion.
    However, I believe this discussion should take place in the context of the long-standing (17 years-old) redirect. A discussion about a redirect to Motion picture content rating system is a fundamentally different discussion to one about a redirect to a potential primary topic atMotion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#PG-13. This pretext that we must conduct the discussion on a false premise because it has already "started" is a very poor reason IMO. Since only two people have engaged in this discussion the proposal can easily be fixed. This redirect has been in place for 17 years, potentially redirects to a primary topic and should be discussed on those terms IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Further comment In a nutshell I believe the real issue is whether the MPA's PG-13 rating covered at Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#PG-13 is the primary topic from those outlined at PG-13 (disambiguation). For 17 years until this morning when the redirect was changed the rating was considered the primary topic. However, 17 years is a long time and more articles covering various PG-13 ratings have been added to Wikipedia. In view of these extra topics is it still correct to treat the MPA rating as the primary topic, or as MB suggests replace the redirect with the disambiguation page. Despite my disagreement with MB over how the discussion has been conducted I do agree with the proposal; I think the MPA ratings article will still get the bulk of the incoming traffic because of the focus on English-language films on Wikipedia (especially Hollywood productions) but I think if there was balanced coverage then there probably wouldn't be a primary topic. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Joe Allen (restaurateur)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

M178'Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

May 2Edit

TyriumEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Tyrium

AspirareEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Astral SpiritsEdit

This is the name of a record label[18] (possibly notable?) that doesn't have a wiki article and isn't mentioned in the dab page. It should be a redlink. (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • CommentAstral spirit exists but the record label has plenty of mentions and perhaps we should delete to let search do its job until someone creates the missing article. Certes (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agreed on notable; I can start working on the article, but am clueless about dealing with redirects... Knifegames (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

RooahEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 12#Rooah

Template:Vcite paperEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

M156Edit

Retarget to Mercedes-Benz M156 engine as primary target. Search results indicate this is most common usage. The Michigan highway is more local in nature and normally written M-156 anyway. MB 18:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. Searching for "M156" all but two hits on the first three pages were directly related to the Mercedes engine and the two that weren't were not related to the Michigan highway (one was a warning light for lorries and excavators, one was a makeup brush). Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate (rather like M178). There are other uses. I have drafted a page at the current redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree a disambiguation page is needed, I disagree that it should be at the base title as the Mercedes engine is the clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I created M178 recently. There are a lot of Mxxx that are both Mercedes engines and Michigan highways. I agree that the engine is PT in this case, and possibly some others where the dab is currently at the base name. MB 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate This needs a disambiguation page. While admittedly some of the Michigan highway pages are infrequently visited people in Michigan refer to them as "MXXX" so if someone wanted to look this up and got auto redirected to the engine they may assume there is no article. Strato|sphere 13:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    If the engine is the primary topic then a {{redirect}} hatnote above its article would enable readers to find the road etc. If not then we should restore the dab version of M156 (or move the new dab there). Certes (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Arboretum Oaks ApartmentsEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Arboretum Oaks Apartments

GQPEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete, G7.

ICICB GroupEdit

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICICB Group and paid/UPE editor, now blocked, came in and added redirect against consensus. scope_creepTalk 14:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete G4 and G5 as recreation of deleted article by blocked user. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Note, G5 doesn't apply when a user was blocked AFTER they did something. Lyanbox's block is CIR/disruption related, not paid/UPE related. A review of the deleted article doesn't show any blocked users involved. G4 also doesn't apply. The redirect has nothing in similarity to the deleted content. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete While ICICB is mentioned at Atari SA#Atari Chain, it's unlikely any reader who actually knows of ICICB Group is expecting to be redirected to a video game company section. Beyond their promotional agreements, the companies have no relation. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment: While the redirect to Atari SA is indeed confusing, the ICICB Group appears to be independently notable and worthy of a separate article if their homepage[19] can be trusted – that is, if the ICICB Group indeed has 58 subsidiaries and 114 branches in 26 countries, and manages $2.6 billion in assets. A better solution would perhaps be to create the article. — kashmīrī TALK 17:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Considering a (lightly attended) AFD just deleted it a week ago as non-notable, that's unlikely right now. That's a topic for DRV though, I suppose. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Tang-e ShurEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Tang-e Shur

Baba AdamEdit

The target is irrelevant: Baba Adam is in Iran, Baba Adam Shahid is in Bengal. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Restore version before it was redirected and send to AfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is a person who was known as "Baba Adam" according to the article (eg: Baba Adam was living in Makkah as a faqir...) -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. CycloneYoris talk! 07:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete given the discussion for the first redirect. Since the same is true for all of Ymblanter's redirections, I will close as a group. -- Tavix (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Razzleberry waterfallEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Flash (2016 film)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Self-Portrait at the Age of 34Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: wrong venue. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Journal of Terrorism ResearchEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 9#Journal of Terrorism Research

François‑Wolff LigondéEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Pinkston WatersportsEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

May 1Edit

East China cratonEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

GTA 6Edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 9#GTA 6

Broad streetsEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

White Railway StationEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Long HotsEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 9#Long Hots

Wikipedia:NEWEdit

Since at least some of these redirects are obviously intended to be left in messages to newcomers I think these should be synchronised to point at the same target (and Help:NEW created and pointed at the same place). It would not be a good experience for a newcomer if someone told them to read "WP:New", for help, they typed "WP:NEW" into the search bar and ended up in a completely different place. WP:NEW does have about 1000 back links, but they're pretty much all in ancient talk page messages and are actually supposed to be linking to the WP:New Users Log. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. WP:NEW originally linked to WP:New Users Log, AFAICS you're right and the vast majority are trying to link there, so by redirecting it again we wouldn't be losing much. ··gracefool 💬 23:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind the Help:New going towards the Help:Your first article , and Wikipedia:New going towards Wikipedia:Article creation, but no preference either way. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Russian-Romanian bilingualismEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 9#Russian-Romanian bilingualism

American Broadcasting CompaniesEdit

This redirect, formerly a disambiguation page, might be better targeted to American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as is. It's an alternate legal name for the network. The current target is appropriate. oknazevad (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • disambiguate restore the dab page with the two entries pointed out here. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Brushless AC electric motorEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Grand Theft Auto 6Edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 8#Grand Theft Auto 6

Grand Theft Auto VIEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 8#Grand Theft Auto VI

Велике журі присяжнихEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Велике журі присяжних

Gender violenceEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 9#Gender violence

April 30Edit

MoraiEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 8#Morai

TuahuEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Tardicaca sharkEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Connected (upcoming film)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Captain Thomas MooreEdit

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

CheckgateEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Checkgate

Kraliçe İkinci ElizabethEdit

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no specific affinity between Elizabeth II and Turkey or Turkish signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. If kept, the second one should redirect to Queen Elizabeth. DrKay (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a connection between Queen Elizabeth II and Turkish. She is the queen of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and one of the main languages there is Turkish. Whether this is enough to keep the redirects I don't know. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep #1, retarget #2 per Mx. Granger's logic and DrKay's argument in the alternative. If it's a valid way of referring to her in a language that is official and/or widely spoken in an area she governs, that would seem to satisfy WP:RLOTE. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, I notice that tr:Kraliçe İkinci Elizabeth does not exist. Could a Turkish speaker clarify whether this is a plausible phrasing in Turkish? Striking my !vote on #1 till then. (tr:Kraliçe Elizabeth redirects to tr:II. Elizabeth, but I don't think that has much bearing on our own decision of "II" vs. the DAB.) -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Is it plausible? Yes and no. It is correct in the sense of how one pronounces it (cf. 'Queen Elizabeth the Second'), but it would be normally written as II. Elizabeth (as indeed the Turkish wiki article has it). Whether anyone would actually search for it like that, even on the Turkish wiki, let alone the English-language one, I have strong doubts. (Then again, I can't for the life of me see why anyone would search for this subject in Turkish on the English wiki, using any search term!)
As for the language of Akrotiri & Dhekelia, the only official language there is English; Turkish speakers are a small minority, and based on the Cypriot politics of the last half century, I would guess their loyal toasts are aimed in the direction of Ankara rather than London. I think the whole A&D issue here is a red herring. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hadelin De PontevesEdit