Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 0 23 23
TfD 0 0 0 0 0
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 2 16 18
AfD 0 0 0 1 1

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

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

Please do not 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 criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first or that it has become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not 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; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of 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, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. 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

STEP I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current listEdit

September 28Edit

Eastern civilizationEdit

Retarget to Eastern world. Privybst (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Western civilizationEdit

Retarget to Western world. Privybst (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Gold Dry BowserEdit

A minor character from Mario Kart Tour. Not mentioned in article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

KerogEdit

Seems to be tagged as R From an incorrect name. But has had 0 page views in the last 30 days. Apparently a book called Bowser by this name. I really doubt any one will type this into the search bar if they are looking for Bowser. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Bowser Sr.Edit

These terms is not used in any Wikipedia article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep: While not mentioned in the article, his canonical son is Bowser Jr. (which is mentioned in the article) making this a plausible search term. We can tag with {{R from incorrect name}} if desired. TartarTorte 13:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own rightEdit

Nobody will use this sentense for a search. Privybst (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: This is a pretty bizarrely specific search term. I can't imagine much damage will be done with deletion here. TartarTorte 13:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of sovereign states. As noted in the history, this is the criteria used on Pointless to define what they mean by "country" so it's not at all an implausible search term. It's not mentioned on the article about the show, so that wouldn't make a good search therm, but List of sovereign states does note UN membership so contains the information someone using this search term is looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

OversaturatedEdit

Usage on Wikipedia is mostly for excessive market saturation, or other uses. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 13:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

ShrowserEdit

No mention of this character anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The king of second bananasEdit

Apparently a meme but it is not mentioned in the article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible to be search or present in the target article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

EnglaEdit

Delete, Engla is a female given name. Privybst (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Magdalena Graaf appears to be the only notable person who has this name, but as it's not the one she primarily uses it would be an unlikely search term for her. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

SBS0Edit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Note related nominations with identical rationales combined. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Network 0-28Edit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Note related nominations with identical rationales combined. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as {{R from former name}} as these are names the target was previously known by according to the article and I can't find any evidence that other subjects do or have ever used the name. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Channel 11 AustraliaEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). Also not a legitimate former name for the article topic. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC 3 (disambiguation)Edit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Note related nominations with identical rationales combined. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless and unambiguous - there is no other page that anybody using this could be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Eleven (Australian television channel)Edit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). Unnecessary alternate form of article's former name Eleven (Australian TV channel) which breaks the MOS format for TV channel article names. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep a very plausible search term for the former name of the target. We don't require readers to know our precise article titling conventions in order to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

X TEN AustraliaEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). Also not a legitimate former name for the article topic. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep as an unambiguous search term for the subject, an Australian TV channel that formerly used X TEN branding. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Channel Ten AustraliaEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Independent Television SystemEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. This was the first name for the subject and is the clear primary topic for the term. A hatnote to the Independent Television dab page should be added though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Snowy Mountains TVEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep completely unambiguous very plausible search term for the target. I'd not object to a speedy keep for this one. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

1 HD (Australia)Edit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Note related nominations with identical rationales combined. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep these are unambiguous search terms for the former name of the target (One HD). Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Channel 31 SydneyEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sydney's TVSEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. This is not a usual disambiguation format but it is both plausible and unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Digital 44 SydneyEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep as unambiguous, plausible (it is based in Sydney) and harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Channel 4 (AU)Edit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

LINC TV LismoreEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). Also unnecessary disambig. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

ACE TV (Adelaide)Edit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Channel 31 AdelaideEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep as a highly plausible search term for the target's former name (Channel 31) which is noted in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

CTS (TV station)Edit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). Also not a legitimate name for the article topic. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Network 7 AustraliaEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Note related nominations with identical rationales combined. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep these are all highly plausible search terms for the target. The Network seven disambiguation page shows that it is highly likely people will not expect the article to be at the base name and so add "Australia" to ensure they arrive at the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Prime Television (Australia)Edit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). Also unnecessary disambig when Prime Television exists. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep as a very plausible and unambiguous search term. Unnecessary disambiguation is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: With the existence Amazon Prime TV especially, this seems like a reasonable disambiguator. TartarTorte 13:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Prime TV AustraliaEdit

Deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE (1) and (2). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Unambiguous and highly plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Warren PinedaEdit

No longer mentioned the target for over 10 years. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:B8D6:4AA9:CD91:CD00 (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Moonu nombuEdit

An implausible cross-namespace redirect from a Malayalam translation of "Fast of Nineveh." Should be deleted per WP:RLOTE as Malayalam has no special connection to the target's topic. 2601:647:5800:4D2:E0D3:FE68:779:9EE9 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Draft to main redirects are not harmful in and of themselves so the cross-namespace aspect of this is not a reason to delete on it's own. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Flying Pig EnterprisesEdit

Not mentioned in target. Not sure what the connection may be, if any. Searching finds a shell website for FPE but that doesn't give any information. Delete. MB 03:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Private MeetingEdit

This is left from a page move where the article had been for 7 months. This name is not mentioned in the article and as a very common term, landing on an Iranian movie would be confusing for someone searching for info on types of meetings. No links left, so no problem with wikilinks. MB 03:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep I added it to the {{lang-fa}} template in the lede; it's an (over)literal translation of the original Persian title, and was used by news media before the official English-language title was decided [1][2]. Per WP:DIFFCAPS, the primary topic of title-case and sentence-case lemmas are not likely to be same; any confusion with sentence case private meeting can be resolved by a hatnote if necessary. The only other topic in Wikipedia correctly referred to as title-case Private Meeting is a minor TV program on Dzaïr News. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Initialisation and Support ApplicationEdit

Not mentioned in target, vague term that could apply to many products. Delete. MB 03:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - Does seem somehow related to an ICL product (eg see [3] and Isa#Computing) but without a mention this is not helpful and may satisfy WP:RFD#D10. Not mentioned at International Computers Limited either. Could be kept if mention is added and justified at either of those targets or perhaps somewhere else (other than the disambiguation page). A7V2 (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Gender violenceEdit

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Gender violence also includes Violence against men and Violence against LGBT people. Current redirections violate WP:NPOV. Sharouser (talk) Sharouser (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I've added {{old rfd list}} noting the prior discussion, but Sharouser you should really have done that yourself as the editor listing this discussion, or at least indicated the content of the past discussion in your opening statement. signed, Rosguill talk 01:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I am sorry for the mistake. I didn't know about the template {{old rfd list}} Sharouser (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep unchanged. As I said the last time OP made this nomination over a year ago, this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should be kept to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. The idea that violence against LGBT people is gender-based violence, per se, rather than its own type, appears to be WP:Original research. Indeed, the vast majority of LGBT people are men or women; implying that is a separate gender seems rather sketchy. Most important, though, is what the most reliable sources say, and here is what Google Scholar turns up: 1. Extent and nature of the problem - Gender-based violence includes a host of harmful behaviors that are directed at women and girls because of their sex, including... [4] In 1993, the United Nations General Assembly defined violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women” (United Nations, 1993). The United Nations referred to “gender-based” violence to acknowledge that such violence is rooted in gender inequality and is often tolerated and condoned by laws, institutions and community norms; it is not only a manifestation of gender-inequality, but often serves to enforce it (Heise, Ellsberg and Gottemoeller, 1999). Gender-based violence comes in many forms throughout the life cycle; this review focuses on the two most common types: physical intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women by any perpetrator. (2005 review) Primary prevention programs address the underlying attitudes, norms, and behaviors that support GBV. The ultimate goals are to end violence, empower women and girls, and promote nonviolent, equitable, and respectful relationships. [5] This 2020 paper uses the term and is about violence against women. Again and again Google Scholar shows that the term is specifically about violence against women and girls. One quote above shows why - it's rooted in systemic gender inequality. The sources are clear and we must follow them. Crossroads -talk- 02:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    None of those quotes actually do show that, they all say that gender-based violence includes violence against women and/or that violence against women is an example of gender-based violence. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Disambig (second choice add a hatnote to a disambig), because while violence against women is one of the most prevalent expressions of gender-based violence, women are far from the only victims and increasingly many organisations and journal articles do not confine the term to just women. For example:
    • "Long before Covid-19, women, girls, trans and non-binary people were already facing an equally devastating but largely ignored pandemic." -Oxfam
    • "Gender based violence (GBV) is [...] committed primarily but not exclusively against women by men." -Public Health Scotland
    • "GBV is violence directed against a person because of that person's gender or violence that affects persons of a particular gender disproportionately. [...] It can include violence against women, domestic violence against women, men or children living in the same domestic unit." European Union
    • "Gender-based violence is violence directed against a person because of their gender. Both women and men experience gender-based violence but the majority of victims are women and girls." European Institute for Gender Equality
    • "Gender-based violence (GBV) is an umbrella term for any harm that is perpetrated against a person’s will and that results from power inequalities based on gender roles." Wirtz, A. 2018 'Gender-Based Violence Against Transgender People in the United States: A Call for Research and Programming'
    • "While initially focused primarily on men’s violence against women (VAW) [...] the definitions of GBV used by different governments and organisations have expanded to include violence against the LGBTQIA+ community, and sometimes violence against men. [...] many groups who also experience GBV, often at higher rates than the cis-gendered women who are traditionally seen as its victims or survivors." Graaf, K. 2021 'The Implications of a Narrow Understanding of Gender-Based Violence'.
    Nobody is arguing that women are not the only victims of GBV, just that GBV does not exclusively refer to violence against women by men, indeed one journal article focused in part on gender-based violence among men who have sex with men (not quoted above as the definition is not included in the freely-available part). Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: this is not an appropriate title for disambiguation, as the proposed topics are not unrelated. Now, if there was a notable album titled Gender Violence, or a TV episode or the like, then we would have actual title ambiguity. What you are looking for here is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article on the general subject of violence motivated by gender. BD2412 T 05:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
      Whatever it is technically, there should be a page that performs the function of linking to all our articles about specific types of gender-based violence. I don't mind if that's a disambig, a set-index, broad concept article, a list or something else. Please take my "disambig" !vote as a reference to any of those. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep unchanged. Examining sources in the violence against women article and more generally, "gender-based violence" is used as a synonym for "violence against women" in particular. The violence is disproportionately directed against them. Originoa (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Gender-related violence, which Thryduulf created based on a draft we wrote together in the previous RfD, per his arguments above and his and my arguments last year. This redirect currently does not point where most readers would expect it to. If there's a desire for that DAB page to be a broad-concept article instead, it can be tagged with {{Broad-concept article}}, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'd forgotten I created that, it is indeed the ideal target for these redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget to gender-related violence -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

English-language given namesEdit

The target is 1) in Project space and 2) contains less than a dozen names. I don't find this particularly useful. I don't see a better category. A list of given names is not very encyclopedic and can be found at other websites. Delete. MB 02:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Added French also, where the target is an empty list. MB 03:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

September 27Edit

Police JudgeEdit

Not mentioned in target article. Recently created with one incoming link; a piped link to the current target may be more appropriate instead of going through this redirect. Either add sourced mention to current target, retarget to where it is presently linked and delink there (though the cited reference does not mention the term either), or delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

SBS Mobile 24Edit

I don’t know why this redirect page exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassie f (talkcontribs) 21:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And not mentioned in target article. Bassie f (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The fair share sequenceEdit

This term is neither used nor explained at target so I don't understand the connection and google results suggest that the term can refer to more than one sequence. There has never been any content at Fair share sequence. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The term seems to come from this YouTube video. It seems likely that people who watched the YouTube video would search for this article using the redirect. 2601:647:5800:4D2:E0D3:FE68:779:9EE9 (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned by the anonymous user, the term was likely coined by Matt Parker, and it is used by people who have seen his YouTube video. See [6], [7], [8], etc. There is probably no need to mention this alternative name in the article itself, but as it is ij some use, having the redirect is useful. //Yuval Talya; My contributions; Let's talk// 05:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair shareEdit

Not mentioned in target article, and the subject of the target isn't necessarily the meaning for the subject of the redirect anyways. There may be a retargeting option somewhere, but I can't think of any possibly ways to find it at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Righteous revengeEdit

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and target unclear. In addition, third party results primarily return results for book titles and a subject about a 1919 Korean film alternatively titled "Fight for Justice" that seems to not have an article on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Final customerEdit

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Plates of meatEdit

Not mentioned in target articles. Seems this may be some sort of slang, but anyone looking for a non-slang topic via this term, probably a subject related to Meat, is in for a surprise. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

הוהיEdit

This is backwards from the correct Hebrew for the Tetragrammaton. Because Hebrew is read right-to-left this transcribes as HWHY. TartarTorte 19:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Searching that exact term returns 113,000 results on my end, however many of them actually spell it the right way around and it only appears mirrored in page titles and, consequently, page results. I suspect this is due to some technical issue with rendering RTL text on some sites or in file names (since many of the results are links to PDF files). I don't know if that translates into it actually being a helpful redirect to anyone though. Conceivably someone could copy and paste it from a file name, not noticing that it's backwards, but that's probably a stretch. – Scyrme (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

אגוטיזםEdit

WP:RLOTE there is no special affinity between the Hebrew language and the concept of egotism. TartarTorte 19:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Pc errorsEdit

For one, Pc error, the singular version, doesn't exist and has never existed. For two, errors on PCs aren't exclusive to software; also, another error that may occur in a PC is a Bus error. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Steps To ReproduceEdit

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment - It seems that Steps To Reproduce was previously a stub article created in 2010 with an improperly capitalised title and no references before it blanked and redirected shortly later by an unregistered user (possibly the creator of the article). The content does not appear to have been merged. Although the "steps to reproduce [a bug]" constitutes a related subtopic, the capitalisation suggests a proper noun which isn't specified, and the properly formatted title of this subtopic, steps to reproduce, does not exist and has not previously existed. However, the phrase "steps to reproduce" is used in a relevant context at Game testing and Release notes. – Scyrme (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with all the other deletes, but this one is probably okay to keep. It's conceivable to me that this could later change to a redirect to a more appropriate target, or even become its own article again. Caleb Stanford (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Bug/GlitchEdit

WP:XY: Software bug and Glitch are two separate subjects/articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: It does not seem like WP:R#K4 applies here as this was not a subpage of Bug. In the absence of that, and with no really significant article history to preserve, and with an WP:XY issue, it seems like deletion is the way to go. TartarTorte 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Where the term "Computer bug" originated fromEdit

Rather clunky phrase that is unlikely and possibly unhelpful due to WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The etymology of the term is covered in Software bug § History, but this redirect is formatted like a Google search, which I don't think is appropriate for the title of a redirect page. Perhaps there's a better phrase that could be turned into an appropriate redirect for the topic, but I can't think of one. Regardless, this one should be deleted; it's similar to redirecting Place where the King of England lives to Windsor Castle or Where jazz originated from to United States. – Scyrme (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as unwieldy/ unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

List of Mario jump & run gamesEdit

Only has one view with in the last 30 days. The only jump & run game I can think of is Super Mario Run. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ll also include:
List of Super Mario jump and run games
List of Super Mario jump & run games
Super Mario jump and run games
Super Mario jump & run games
List of Mario jump and run games
Mario jump and run games
and Mario jump & run games Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pizzaplayer219: Then you'll need to follow the RFD instructions to tag and officially nominate all of those; otherwise, the result of this discussion will not affect them. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I am going to. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Steel1943 done. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pizzaplayer219: Not quite. I saw you tagged the redirects, but you didn't list them in this nomination using {{Rfd2}}. I took care of that issue in this edit. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete all. Someone really went overboard with these lol. Caleb Stanford (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

G-WashEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete, G5

Christmas bingoEdit

The word "Christmas" is nowhere in the target article, meaning the subject of this redirect is not identified in the target article. However, this redirect is a {{R from merge}} as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas bingo which took place in 2007 (15 years ago). Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - not a likely search term, as seen by the average of zero views it racks up. I don't believe there's anything to say on it anyways, it seems like a run of the mill holiday themed version of something. If you understand Bingo and understand Christmas, that should just about cover it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

History of BingoEdit

Bingo (British version)#History also exists, so this redirect is ambiguous. However, this redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Disambig. This is a very plausible search term for someone who doesn't know that there are multiple versions of the game that don't share a history (e.g. me before seeing this nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

GhantsalaEdit

It is a spelling mistake, and there are no incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Google results show this this is a common typo/misspelling of the musician's name, and seemingly not for any of the other uses on the Ghantasala dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ghantasala as {{R from misspelling}}. If we're going to have a misspelling redirect, then it should target the page of which it is a misspelling. If this is primarily a misspelling of the musician, then it would imply the musician is the primary topic for the correct spelling, which is a separate discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    The primary topic for the misspelling is the musician, there is no primary topic for the correct spelling. There is no reason for the two not to lead to different places. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure, it's possible to have a misspelling be a primary redirect, but it generally shouldn't be. Surely some users of this misspelling would be seeking one of the other entries on the dab page, but currently cannot easily get there due to a lack of a hatnote to the dab page. A normal {{Other}} hatnote shouldn't be employed per WP:NOTAMBIG; a {{Redirect}} hatnote like: "[misspelling]" redirects here. For other uses, see [correct spelling (disambiguation)] would just be awkward and confusing and I'm unaware of such a setup elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Retarget per Mdewman6. The existence of a DAB page suggests the musician is not necessarily the primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

2026 Formula One World ChampionshipEdit

While there is a single mention (sort of) of 2026 (saying new fuel and engine regulations will begin in 2025 or 2026), it is deep in the article, and there is of course no actual discussion of the 2026 season in the article as that is simply too far away. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - I made a mistake of making the redirect only because of the new engine regulations, when the actual championship is much deeper than that. Hansen SebastianTalk 02:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Refine target to "Formula One#Future" - While it is far WP:TOOSOON for any sort of article, there is more than enough coverage out there (BBC, Racefans, Autosport) to suggest that this is a viable search term, and this section of the main Formula One article is currently the most helpful place to take people to. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes on consideration you're right, due to the regulation changes set for 2026. I support this suggestion. A7V2 (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: as Formula One doesn't discuss this season in suffiecent detail for a redirect to be justified. If and when there is a substantive content on regulations changes vis-a-vis 2026 (specifically 2026, and at least a healthy sized paragraph, preferable a detailed section on the changes) consider this vote changed to keep.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think a vague wave of noting there may be different regulations in 2025 or 2026 is enough to sustain this redirect. Recreate when there is specific information about the Championship in question. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per others above. It's best to delete for now and recreate later, or as soon as information about the Championship is made available per Tavix. CycloneYoris talk! 01:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (Cars)Edit

Not mentioned at target page, plus the character in question is only referred to as "The Queen" anyway (it has been a while since I've seen the terrible movie known as Cars 2). In other words, it's technically OR. Requesting deletion. TNstingray (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: She was mentioned in the article up until her section was removed September 2 along with everything else in the "Other cars" section as part of an effort by Doniago, Blaze Wolf, and others to trim down the page in recent days-they may want to weigh in as well. Regardless of whether or not she's "notable," she's still based on the real-life Queen Elizabeth II (RIP Your Majesty)-just saying. No strong opinion about whether or not to add back the sections. Regards, SONIC678 00:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't necessarily support keeping if the information is no longer there as pointed out by Sonic678, but I don't think it's too much of WP:OR, at least for a redirect, to claim that the queen in a scene where Rule, Britannia! is played as the cars enter a room in a Buckingham Palace-esque building with red cars in beefeater hats as guards, is referencing Queen Elizabeth. If the information were to be added back, I'd be in favor of keeping. TartarTorte 12:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete unless she's proven to be notable via reliable sources. Thanks for the ping Sonic678. If she is proven to be notable enough to be in the list then I'm in favor of keeping. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep if mentioned, delete if not. I have no opinion whether the character should be mentioned in the article, but if they are then this is a perfectly good and useful redirect. If they aren't mentioned then the redirect should be deleted as misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: If ever put this into the search tab, I would expect to be led to a list of Elizabeth II's cars. Not an entry about a film character who appears for all of a couple of seconds (if memory serves). SSSB (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, plus restore some information onto list page: the character is plot-significant and the character does evoke the real-life Queen Elizabeth II. Information restored should be minimized, though. (Admittedly, this might be a discussion better suited for the talk page, but given how Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Fuck her right in the pussy turned out, I'll say my piece regardless.) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. Regarding the point above, the character has like two minutes of screen time and is not plot significant beyond basically one scene at the end. There is an ongoing effort to pare down the list based on WP:FANCRUFT, among others. There is really no information that can be added other than, "this character is based on a real-life person," in which case we would have to add back so many other incredibly minor characters per the same reasoning that the effort would be worthless. TNstingray (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    There is really no information that can be added other than, "this character is based on a real-life person," in which case we would have to add back so many other incredibly minor characters per the same reasoning that the effort would be worthless. You said yourself that she has some plot-significance; surely, this can be handled in a single bullet point, no? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    • No, the information is not encyclopedically valuable. I should clarify: she has one scene in the movie with like a couple of lines of dialogue. Most of the lists like this on Wikipedia have gotten completely out of hand. WP:FANCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:DIRECTORY, WP:LISTCRITERIA. Besides, the character is only referred to as "The Queen" anyway. Right now, the redirect is misleading on a number of levels. TNstingray (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
      Which scene is that, the one where she watches the hero confront the villain or the one where she rewards the hero? On a more pertinent note, LISTCRITERIA explicitly has a subsection which says that one of the common selection criteria is cases of all not notable, which seems to apply here. I'll also mention that a) the character's license plate reads "DEII 1952" (i.e. Elizabeth II, 1952 (the year when she became Queen)) and b) Prince Wheeliam calls her "grandmother", at least in one scene... I don't think it's a stretch for someone to think the character's name is Queen Elizabeth II. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

MannerbundeEdit

Change to link to Kóryos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_14#M%C3%A4nnerbund This is just an artifact of a diacritic's removal, and was not accounted for. I would also like to note that Männerbünde is in the same situation Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Note I've added Männerbünde to this discussion as I believe that's what the nominator means with their last sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The previous discussion mentioned was Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Männerbund where "Männerbund" and "Mannerbund" (with no e and 1/0 diacritics) were discussed and deleted. That discussion considered and rejected retargetting to Kóryos. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Note I've also added Männerbund to this discussion, which was recreated by Mebigrouxboy (the nominator here) earlier today. All three I think should be discussed as a set. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't know why I have been notified of this discussion; I only made a gnoming fix to a pre-existing redirect. The creator of the title is Dbachmann. BD2412 T 22:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to Kóryos#Männerbund, which explains this specific term (and has an inter-wiki link to the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia de:Männerbund - currently deactivated by the {{ill}} template because the redirect Männerbund was temporarily turned into an article for as long as this discussion is ongoing).
Regarding the actual meaning of the German term, a Männerbund was historically often a secret society, but not necessarily. Kóryos is an overarching concept as well. We do not have an exact article equivalent on the German de:Männerbund, that's why I think a redirect Kóryos#Männerbund would be the best solution.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Prime Minister of GuatemalaEdit

Nonexistent title, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Prime Minister of the United States. Privybst (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete for obvious reasons. scope_creepTalk 16:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: The President of Guatemala is the Head of State which is what people unfamiliar with a certain country's specific system of government are searching for. While there is no office called Prime Minister of Guatemala, the President is the Head of State and Head of Government for Guatemala so for someone searching for the equivalent role to Head of State, it would be more useful to take the to this with a {{R from incorrect title}} than to delete. TartarTorte 17:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Politics of Guatemala (where Government of Guatemala redirects). The lead there concisely explains that the President of Guatemala is both head of state, head of government, and of a multi-party system. and goes on to note who exercise executive and judicial power in the country. Whatever they are looking for they will find it either there or one click away. Second choice is to keep per TatarTotte. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Retarget per Thryduulf. It's not ideal, but people who are typing in "PM of Guatemala" are obviously looking for information on the government of the country, particularly the head of state. But it's dangerous to conflate PM and president as synonyms. Therefore, taking them to the government page will explain the form of government while also providing quick access to the page on the president of the country. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Either delete or retarget to Politics of Guatemala. I lean towards delete because "Prime+Minister+of+Guatemala" yields only a handful of results (only 1 of which appears to be a genuine hit, the others being Wiki clones or Q&A bots which autofill answers to procedurally generated questions), suggesting this isn't actually a common mistake and that retargeting it is probably being too charitable in trying to make it work somehow. However, if everyone else favour retargeting, at least Politics of Guatemala avoids an inaccurate and misleading false equivalence between "prime minister" and "president".
Regarding the equivalent role to Head of State, a "prime minister" is not a head of state; that role is filled by a president or monarch in a parliamentary system. This is precisely why false equivalences are misleading. – Scyrme (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)Edit

The targeted section no longer exists; plus, the characters name is "Bron-Char" with one n. TNstingray (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

VelaricEdit

This adjective refers to concepts related to velar consonants, and is not restricted to velaric ingressive sounds (there is even a velaric egressive too). 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that redirecting velaric to ingressive sound is a sort of strange choice. But I think velaric airstream might also be worth considering as the redirect target. Umimmak (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
That seems like a good solution, thanks. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
But Velaric airstream is not an article, but another redirect that points to Airstream mechanism. CycloneYoris talk! 01:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

IPod idogEdit

WP:RFD#DELETE nonsense. No idea what this is intended to mean. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Retarget to IDog; its an actual product developed by SEGA. Roostery123 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Roostery123. A quick search for "iPod iDog" seems to mostly bring up results for the SEGA iDog DirkJandeGeer щи 14:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget to IDog per others. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY. The structure of the redirect title could make a reader assume that the redirect refers to a product in the iPod line of products, which the iDog is not; for this reason and due to the fact that both words in the redirect represent subjects exclusive from each other, this redirect can be considered misleading per WP:XY. If anyone uses this phrase in Wikipedia's search attempting to look up this, they can then decide which subject are trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel. An iDog isn't an iPod product. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete per Steel1945. The iDog doesn't appear to be related to the iPod. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's not an "official" iPod product, but it is related in that the iDog is/was intended for use with an mp3 player, especially the iPod; the smooth white design of the standard iDog was meant to complement the design of the standard iPod. One of the references at iDog even explicitly describes the product as an "iPod speaker". Many companies produce peripherals for products that they don't produce, so this not being an Apple product doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant. – Scyrme (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above, and the fact that it's been wrongly targeted for 13 years without anyone noticing. -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I think it's plausible that someone would search "iPod iDog" looking for the iDog, since the two products have an informal association, but I don't have a strong opinion on whether that's a good enough reason to justify this redirect. Leaning delete because the correctly capitalised version, iPod iDog, does not exist and there's no particular reason to make an exception for the miscapitalised version. – Scyrme (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending delete, but one more relist seems appropriate given the still-close !vote count
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete the iDog isn't associated with the iPod, and while you could use an iDog with an iPod I don't think that's enough to justify the redirect. I can't see much usage of the term on Google either. Hut 8.5 18:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    I get 347,000 results when searching for the terms together, many of which explicitly refer to it as an "iPod speaker", "iPod accessory", or "companion for [the/your] iPod". I don't know what you would call that if not "associated". It's not formally or legally associated, but that doesn't mean it's not associated in a broader sense. – Scyrme (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

William H. BrooksEdit

I don't think this redirect is useful given the incredible obscurity of the subject and the commonness of the name "William H. Brooks" - I'm finding a Confederate colonel with a minor role at the Battle of Helena, a photographer with four works held by the National Gallery of Canada, a mayor of Norfolk, Virginia, and a corporate officer for Noranda Aluminum. I think just sending readers to the search results is much more useful in this case. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I regret making too many redirects in the past and when I initially saw this notification, was going to just G7 it. However, it appears to make sense in terms of the article it leads to. I can't decide either way so will lead it up to the community here. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep as he is the only William Brooks we have an article on with the middle initial H. If that changes at some point in the future a hatnote can be added to the other person and/or dab page. There is a William Henry Brooke who might be worth adding a hatnote to from the footballer's article (and if so, vice versa), but that's far enough away that retargetting there would not be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete (along with William H Brooks) to reveal search results. The footballer is never referred to (AFAICT) by the name "William H. Brooks" so someone searching this is most assuredly looking for a different person. The Confederate and the horse trainer are particularly prominent. -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete unless evidence can be shown that the target is commonly referred to with his middle initial. (Ping me if so). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Adventure CradlesEdit

I really have no idea what this means. I’ve look it up on google and nothing comes up. Nothing with the word “Adventure Cradles” come up on Wikipedia either. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

FistfightEdit

The disambiguation page Fist Fight does not deal specifically with "fistfight". I think a soft redirect to wikt:fistfight might be a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a plausible search term for everything called "fist fight" and there is a link to Wiktionary on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. --Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Deathsquad networkEdit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:LTUEdit

The current redirect leads to the inactive ex-technical page Wikipedia:List of templates by usage, that was wiped in 2011. LTU is one of the country codes of Lithuania, and as such is a rudimentary search option when looking for the WikiProject Lithuania. Respublik (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: The nominator wants this retargeted Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania. I fixed the nomination where the proposed target was listed next to the arrow instead of the current target, but I didn't want to alter someone's statement, so I am adding this here. TartarTorte 14:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget. We should always be very careful about retargetting shortcut redirects as the potential for harm from changing the meaning of discussions, edit summaries etc is high. In this case there are no incomming links other than in lists of shortcuts and similar, the target page has been historical for more than a decade, there is a clear and logical other target, the current target is not the sort of page that is likely to widely referred to in edit summaries and it gets few page views. All together this means the likelihood of harm from retarggeting is much lower than the average shortcut and there will be a clear benefit to the retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Or it could become a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Shortcut disambigs are almost always the worst of all worlds given that they don't act as shortcuts to any of the listed topics. In this case, we have two targets one of which is a page that has been historical for over a decade and attracted all-but no incomming links across title and shortcut that have survived to the present day, the other is an active Wikiproject for a contemporary country. If the link to the defunct list needs to be preserved then a hatnote at the Lithuania project page will be very significantly better. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

List of Paper Mario series charactersEdit

No such list anywhere. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • It's an erroneously "fixed" double redirect. It originally targeted Characters in the Paper Mario series, a former article, before it was BLARed in 2010. Either we revert the article/redirect setup to its pre-2010 state or delete if we don't. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Paper Mario (Series) CharactersEdit

No specific list for all the characters in the paper Mario series. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete for two capitalisation errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

List of characters in Super Paper MarioEdit

No such list anywhere. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

PungryEdit

No mention of this character in Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Puni ElderEdit

Again no mention of this character in Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

PunioEdit

No mention of the character anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

PetuniEdit

No mention of the character anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

PuniperEdit

No mention of the species anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ian Dingman (Disambiguation)Edit

Target not a disambiguation page, and the respective disambiguation page does not exist. (See Ian Dingman (disambiguation).) Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: per G14 TartarTorte 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Unless WP:G14 was recently updated, it does not apply to this redirect since the criterion is specifically only for articles/redirects where the disambiguator is spelled and capitalized "(disambiguation)" without a capital "D". Steel1943 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, I did not realize that was the case. Just regular delete as (Disambiguation) not targeting a DAB. TartarTorte 15:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    The incorrect capitalization is even more reason to delete it not to argue G14 doesn't apply just because it is capitalized incorrectly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. While this redirect would be plausible if the target were a disambiguation page (and there were more Ian Dingmans here to support it), the fact that it's not just misleads readers, even without the capitalization hurting things much. This one just needs to go along with the nine others of its sort that were discussed a little over a month earlier. Regards, SONIC678 16:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. The D being capital is harmless and I explicitly oppose deleting it for that reason. However there being no page that disambiguates Ian Dingmans is a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete the DAB page was deleted in 2015 and it doesn't target a DAB now, rather an article even ignoring WP:RDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Last time this came up there was consensus that speedy deletion does not apply to redirects that use "(Disambiguation)" with a capital D. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Invest 98LEdit

As a frequently reused term, it is too vague to be of use as a redirect. Drdpw (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In which case disambigs are called for. kencf0618 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
As Invest 91-L and Invest 99-L redirect to that article, redirecting 98L there might work, except that the way the title is constructed, 98L could also be an airport runway designation. Drdpw (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Postback (Disambiguation)Edit

Target not a disambiguation page, and doesn't seem like the respective disambiguation page exists. (Postback (disambiguation) doesn't exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. The D being capital is harmless and I explicitly oppose deleting it for that reason. However there being no page that disambiguates uses of Postback is a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under G14 even ignoring WP:RDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:FoEdit

Delete. I came across only two instances where this template had been used, both times in error, e.g. mistyping {{For}}. No error message was displayed to draw attention to the failed edit. It would be better to have nothing here, so that such an error would display Template:Fo. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wool HatEdit

Unlikely miscapitalization of the generic term "wool hat", which returns too many diverse search results to redirect to a specific article. No incoming links. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Reality shiftEdit

These should point to the same place (and I note the term is mentioned in neither target so am leaning toward deleting both) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - I don't know if it would help, but if it does, both were attempts at articles that got redirected: Reality shift and Reality shifts. BOZ (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article content at Reality shift was a gloasary entry for the terms use in role playing games, that at Reality shifts was actually a half-decent stub about a completely different concept - however there is a previously deleted, much longer article about that at Reality shift (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality shift). After skim-reading I'm not certain I agree with those who argued for deletion, but it was closed in accordance with the consensus of the discussion and the content at the plural title is at least arguably eligible for G4 deletion because of that. The content at the singular title (about the RPG term) was nominated for speedy deletion for failing to establish notability (correct), as a neologism (incorrect) and for being a potential recreation (it wasn't), it was then redirected to Reality shifts as a duplicate of that (also incorrect). Complicating matters further there are mentions of the term in several articles that are different to both. The term "reality shift" is used for multiple different concepts all of which are vaguely related to and/or partially overlap with at least one other use, and at least some of those are definitely notable. There is definitely scope for content here, but writing an article (or maybe multiple articles would better) about a messy bunch of overlapping concepts using the same terminology that brings enough clarity that it can survive an AfD nomination is going to be hard and I strongly advise anyone attempting that to avoid mainspace until it's already well developed. TL;DR: we don't currently have any content that would be a good redirect target and/or survive speedy deletion, and there is no Wiktionary entry to soft redirect to. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to False memory#Mandela Effect which literally mentions the paranormal idea of a "reality shift" as the cause of collective false memories. If that would be too specific, it could at the very least be made into a disambiguation page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 16:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Change both redirects into a disambiguation page. I can't inspect the originally deleted article at Reality shift to assess its notability, but I nevertheless mostly agree with Thryduulf's argument above. However, as a consequence, I would opt to change both redirects into a disambiguation page rather than to delete them (because deleting a redirect implicitly raises the threshold for (re-)creation, so most once deleted entries will never be recreated even if the term "as is" is notable and would warrant an article or redirect at a later stage). At present the disambiguation page would have two entries, but as we find other aspects or even types of "reality shift" discussed in other articles (like various kinds of schizophernic or psychotic conditions resulting in the distortion, shift or loss of reality) we can easily add links to these locations as well. Over time, one or the other sub-topic may evolve into fully fleshed-out sections or even actual articles (and if someone feels motivated to write an overarching concept article on Reality shifts s/he can always switch the disambiguation page into an article). So, keeping the topic as a disambiguation page would not interfere with any kind of further content creation while having the necessary infrastructure in place already for easier information structuring as well as for navigation. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. None of the actual mentions of these terms [9][10] are in articles that would make good targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Matthiaspaul. BD2412 T 20:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Shifting realities is a fringe idea based on quantum pseudoscience, and that's clearly what these redirects are going for. It's associated with the idea that you can literally shift realities through positive thinking, in the manner of New Thought, based on a misunderstanding of the role of consciousness and the observer in quantum mechanics.
As noted by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, it's also associated with the belief that the Mandela effect is a paranormal phenomenon caused by people having remembering an alternate past which they experienced prior to shifting into a new reality where those events occurred differently or not at all. However, although False memory § Mandela Effect mentions "parallel realities" it does not explicitly refer to "reality shifts". While it could be incorporated, I doubt there are many if any reliable secondary sources which could provide an appropriate reference, and it might be an undue inclusion to section which is mainly focused on the sociology/psychology of shared false memories.
In-fact, unless I've missed one, every explicit use of the phrase on Wikipedia that I've found actually uses it in a sci-fi/fantasy context. However, they're all far too specific to be disambiguated between or to work as new non-fringe targets. The only use of these redirects in article space seems to be a questionably relevant "see also" link, so that doesn't help either.
tl;dr - Delete, fringe topic and there are no good targets to retarget to or disambiguate between. Best to leave them as red links.
Scyrme (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles OsbourneEdit

This redirects to Charles Osborne, but none of the people on that page use this spelling, and I have just encountered one person who does (who is not notable enough for a wiki article, but there may be others in the future). Don't see the point of this redirect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep as a plausible misspelling of any of the people listed there. If a person by this name becomes notable and gains an article in future then the redirect should be replaced with a hatnote to the same location. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Narrowing (computer science)Edit

Following up on an issue from a recent Rfd, this redirect seems like {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} given the existence of Narrowing of algebraic value sets which seems like a related topic arguably also within the realm of computer science, and should be retargeted to the disambiguation page Narrowing (and the dab page updated) if we can identify a good way to disambiguate these two topics. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep: I think the status quo is fine. If anything has to change, I would delete Narrowing of algebraic value sets as it seems weakly sourced and pretty obscure. As of my edit [11] the only page that links to Narrowing (computer science) is Narrowing with its DAB entry, but I don't think there's enough material on narrowing for a full WP page so the DAB entry and hence the redirect has to stay. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: While not currently mentioned in the article on type conversion, there is also an unrelated concept of narrowing within programming as well that has to do with conversion from a type that is able to hold more information, to one that is not. I'll try to see if I can find a place to put it there. If I can, then it should definitely go to the DAB for Narrowing as there will be two programming adjacent entries. TartarTorte 00:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

K16DOEdit

Not mentioned in target. MB 02:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete These were translators that no longer exist. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 16:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:DEGRADE. For as long as I've been involved with broadcasting articles, there's been a revolving cast of SPAs who are very aggressive about weighting our coverage towards current events, specifically pushing the POV that notability and aspects thereof hinges solely on the existence of a current valid FCC license. Did the nominator examine the revision history of the target articles to see if those pushing for deletion were the same ones who made the edits leading to the situation outlined in the rationale? If so, that's called gaming the system and playing dumb about it. At any rate, what credibility is there in saying that we're a historical record when we're allowing these editors free reign to push an entire content area in a different direction? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without a mention in the article these redirects are confusing. RadioKAOS's comments may be valid but are about edit disputes on the respective targets, and not our business necessarily. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Catholic lawEdit

This is a nickname of the Columbus School of Law. However, we have Canon law of the Catholic Church and Category:Catholic law schools in the United States which includes 30 "Catholic law" schools. A dab may be better. MB 01:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate although Canon law of the Catholic Church gets a lot more hits, "Catholic law" probably isn't one of the most common synonyms for canon law, whereas it is a common nickname for the university. Hut 8.5 18:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

September 26Edit

Barry David SandersEdit

Barry Sanders has no middle name. See this tweet. gobonobo + c 23:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - This has existed since 2004 and as the twitter exchange you've linked to shows this was an error which appears/ed in reliable sources for a long time. So it seems a plausible search term. Redirects don't need to be correct. A7V2 (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as {{R from incorrect name}} per A7V2. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. Some people believe that to be his name, so it's a possible search term and doesn't cause any harm to keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - the tweet shows that we should not list the name in the article, but it actually establishes that we should have a redirect. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

All The TropesEdit

Seeking feedback on where these titles (AllTheTropes/All The Tropes) should point; currently they point to a section of the target article that no longer exists, and the article doesn't mention ATT at all. If a Miraheze page existed, I'd probably redirect there since ATT is one of the most active wikis on that wiki farm, but there's just a draft currently: Draft:Miraheze. -- Arlo James Barnes 23:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist malfunctioned. Trying again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Switch emuEdit

The target isn't an emu. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. This redirect was created when Yuzu (emulator)—currently the only notable Switch emulator—was moved to Emulators of Nintendo Switch and expanded into an article about Switch emulation in general. That move was reverted but it sounds like the editor is considering writing a new article—and if that happens, we can recreate the redirect. However, I !voted weak delete because Yuzu, as the only notable Switch emulator, isn't a terrible target for this redirect. We could always keep it and retarget later. Just a thought. Woodroar (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Retarget to Emulators of Nintendo Switch now that the article's been created. Woodroar (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Keep and retarget to Emulators of Nintendo Switch (which exists as its own thing now). ostensibly singular silvia ASH (inquire within) 08:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC) "Emu" is short for "emulator", and is not intended to refer to the bird. As the editor who created the redirect, and who is spoken of above as the one who made the undiscussed change to the target page (now reverted). I might remake the general Switch emulation article as its own thing, as has been recommended to me after the reversal of the change, and if that is done, this can be retargeted. As it stands, I believe the current target is perfectly fine. However, I also don't really care if it's deleted. If it later needs to be recreated, then it can be. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 00:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The "emu" in this sense doesn't refer to the bird, but a shortened version of the term "emulator", as Blankpopsicles explained. Hansen SebastianTalk 07:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

List of Graph Theory ProblemsEdit

Originally, this article did not consist of a list of graph theory problems. It was a list of arc routing variants (which is a minuscule share of graph theory problems). Accordingly, I've merged the list to the arc routing article but now the title of the redirect makes little sense so it should be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • My gut feeling is that we probably should have something at this title - maybe a list, maybe a (redirect to a) list of lists, possibly a dab. However I don't have the subject knowledge to figure out whether we have the content to support that? Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Graph theory#Problems * Pppery * it has begun... 00:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Graph theory#Problems as it discusses exactly what someone searching this would be looking to find (well not exactly in list format). Potentially could be restored at some point if someone wanted to tidy it up and fill in the gaps (or perhaps start fresh) as it could be a notable topic. A7V2 (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

30th Street Station (Philadelphia) (NJT station)Edit

The double disambiguator, especially formatted as such, makes this quite improbable. TartarTorte 21:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete fundamentally confusing and implausible redirect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep not sure what's confusing about this, every NJT station has an article/redirect that contains the NJT station modifier. The double disambiguator is there because at the time of this article's creation (over 15 years ago??), the main 30th st station article also had "Philadelphia" in it. Frankly this seems like a waste of time. What problem is this effort solving exactly? I see the nominator seems to spend a lot of time nominating redirects for deletion. I can see a lot better uses of people's time than this.  —lensovettalk – 05:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution 2022Edit

POV term not in wide use in RS, redirect caused by undiscussed page move, delete. I would have speedied this, but I know this is a controversial topic area. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • delete. Too early to call this a "revolution". It's not even at the same scale as the 2009 and 2019 protests I think. But regardless of the scale, if this series of protests get squashed by the Islamic Republic, just like the previous ones, without any significant change ensuing from it (at least a reform of the dress code rules), then I don't see how this would be considered "a revolution" on any level.--
Ideophagous (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per OP.
Czello 20:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's not currently a revolution. The government of Iran has not changed, and nothing major enough has changed for it to be referred to as a revolution. While there are widespread protests, that's all that they are. TartarTorte 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least delete for now. Pichpich (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as no revolution has occurred. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete until reliable sources refer to these events as such. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as no revolution occured yet. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 05:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Moose (upcoming film)Edit

Back when the trailer was released, VampireKilla moved the target to its current title-while yes, the main character is named Moose, this seems to be a working title that's no longer the case. While working titles are plausible redirects, what makes this problematic is the "upcoming" after the title when it's already been released, and plus it doesn't seem to be searched as much after that huge number of pageviews in the year of its release. I'd say delete this unless someone can provide a justification or alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 18:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete We can just retarget Moose (film) to serve this redirect's purpose instead. Do any other films exist called Moose (or have an article?) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara (film)Edit

I would like the redirects for The Kidnapping of Edgardo (film) and Draft:Untitled animated Spice Girls film retargeted for the following reasons. First, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara was announced to be moving forward without Steven Spielberg.[1] Second, the target article for the draft about the upcoming animated film about the Spice Girls is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.209.40.250 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "A movie about kidnapped Italian Jew Edgardo Mortara is moving forward without Steven Spielberg", Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 18, 2022, retrieved September 26, 2022
  • Comment: Fixed nomination since it was slightly malformed, and also tagged both redirects included in this nomination. CycloneYoris talk! 19:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is unclear where these redirects should be retargeted. It is also unclear why these redirects are bundled. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo-SonicEdit

A character from The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. Not found anywhere on Wikipedia and has no reliable sources to include a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
One other possibility could be to retarget to Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog#Main episodes since Pseudo Sonic minus the - is the title of one of the episodes in the show. Regardless, the current target is not the correct location for this.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
If that list is restricted to video game characters only, that article should be renamed as the title is misleading due to Sonic having long been a multimedia franchise with many characters who never appear in the games. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It was formerly titled List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters 2A02:9B0:8022:2EFC:CD34:80D4:CD91:8044 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
That's the title I'd expect with the list's scope. Was there an explanation for the change? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The article name was changed once all the other Sonic character lists (cartoon, comics, etc) were deleted/redirected for notability reasons and there were no other lists to disambiguate it from. And inclusion criteria were created at the remaining article to help keep all the non-noteworthy characters from flooding that list too. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

CrocbotEdit

Nothing about the character on Wikipedia. No reliable sources to warrant a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    • If the article is restricted to game characters only, "List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters" is an awful name for it since the franchise has long been known for its multimedia ventures. It should be renamed. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
      I’ll make a move discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
      Here Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Auto-AutomatonsEdit

Apparently some robots from the Archie sonic series. Couldn’t find anything about them on Wikipedia or any reliable sources. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

JRR Tolkien/SindarinEdit

Yesterday, I nominated a redirect with similar formatting (The Silmarillion/Sindarin). I believe it falls into the same category: improbable search term, no meaningful page history, etc. Delete per same reasoning as my other nomination. TNstingray (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - appears to be the remnant of a long-outdated convention. No longer serves any purpose. Change to keep per Tamzin. Was not aware of the K4 rationale but this surely seems to apply. I guess they created that guideline for a reason so I will follow it. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete outdated formatting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    Update: still support deletion, I searched rather exhaustively for existing links on external pages and I don't think there are any. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:R#K4: Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including ... old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. If we're going to start deleting this kind of redirect, it should probably be an RfC. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Tamzin: that'd be a splendid reason, but there actually aren't any: no Wikipedia articles at all. There are just deletion discussion pages and a couple of user pages. There is also no history to speak of, it's always been a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. TNstingray (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - page is not needed, is not linked, and is not a plausible search target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tamzin. No real reason for deletion has been advanced, and a reason to keep applies. Also note that the talkpage notifications to User:0 were futile as that is not any actual user's name which is peculiar (see the userpage). A7V2 (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I use Twinkle and have not had previous issues with this. Not sure why that happened. TNstingray (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Twinkle is correctly following the metadata it gets from MediaWiki. That metadata just happens to be wrong in this case. Probably no point in building in a special case for it though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Sorry I worded it a bit strangely, it wasn't in any way intended as criticism. Even though they aren't quite a user, they are listed as the creator of this so it makes sense for Twinkle to do that as it would normally be expected to post on the creator's talkpage when listing a redirect here. A7V2 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

PlessieEdit

Not in article plus there is a lot of plausible targets. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete....no mention. Would be open to recreating redirect if someone is able to find a reliable source proving the character's relative notability and add the character back in. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Super Mario#Ridable animals and vehicles or alternatively, one of the individual game articles. Also fine with disambiguating from other Plessies but any of these scenarios is better for the searching audience than deletion. czar 07:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Swoop (Mario)Edit

Couldn’t find anything about a “Swoop” in the article, nor in any other article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete....no mention. I used to play Mario all the time and I've never heard of this character. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete minor recurring enemy that isn’t well known.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as not mentioned. Jontesta (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Pom Pom (Mario)Edit

No mention anywhere as far as I know. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete....no mention. Seems less plausible for inclusion than Plessie. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Weak retarget or delete. Pom Pom is an extremely minor character first appearing in Super Mario 3D Land, though she is not listed there. She is listed as a playable character at Super Mario Party. If this is too obscure still, delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNstingray (talkcontribs) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Cyborg WartEdit

Nothing relating to a “cyborg wart” in article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - apparently a fake magazine from Super Paper Mario, but it is not mentioned there, either. Since it is a minor plot device/gag that is not mentioned anywhere, it serves little purpose ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above, minor trivia unlikely to ever be searched or mentioned in the target. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete it’s a fictional comic mentioned only mentioned once in passing by a single character in Super Paper Mario.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete obscure fictional item per abovementioned findings. --Lenticel (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Jontesta (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Mouser (Nintendo)Edit

No mention anywhere. Only one mention in Super Mario Bros. 2 but it is small. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Not covered to any significant extent and I don’t believe it the single mention on the Mario 2 page that it was replaced by a robot Birdo in the GBA port would be useful info for someone looking the character up.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Upcoming film redirects targeting subject related to director or actorEdit

Sympathy for the Devil (upcoming film) could equally point to Joel Kinnaman, who is also apparently slated to star in this film. The Bricklayer (upcoming film) could equally point to Nina Dobrev or Aaron Eckhart, who are apparently slated to appear in the film. Revolver (upcoming film) could equally point to Maya Hawke or Ethan Hawke, who are apparently slated to appear in the film. Does not make sense to point this redirect to only one of the various notable people who will be part of this subject. (Also, see Draft:The Bricklayer (upcoming film) or Draft:Revolver (upcoming film).) Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Redirect from film to director.
Paradoctor (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
This comment refers to Revolver (upcoming film) and The Bricklayer (upcoming film), unless stated otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Paradoctor (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
This comment refers to Sympathy for the Devil (upcoming film), unless stated otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Paradoctor: If possible, please provide a guideline, essay, or previous discussion(s)that states this is precedence. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    We redirect from creative works to their creators all the time. Unless the work is notable on its own, that's where I expect to find encyclopedic information about the work, as opposed to the narrow view from a production employee. Paradoctor (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Paradoctor: Thanks for the explanation behind your rationale. As such, I just reviewed the verbiage of {{R from work}}, and since the template includes the verbiage "...or subject related to the work..., I believe there could be an equal claim that this template could be used for an actor slated to appear in the film. There's not really any evidence that I can see that proves the director of these subjects is what the reader is looking for when searching these terms; without this solidified connection, this redirect poses the WP:XY ambiguous issue I had stated in my initial rationale. (Also, I'm going to attempt to merge all of these discussions since I think repeating the same statement on all is a bit cumbersome for both of us.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    merge all of these discussions I'd appreciate that. Paradoctor (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    Done: Discussions merged together. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you.
    First, I didn't say that the director of these subjects is what the reader is looking for. I said that is where information about the work belongs and is expected to be found.
    there could be an equal claim Not at all. XY would apply among actors, sure. But the director is the unique, central role in a production. They are the author, they decide who works on the film, and they decide what the finished film looks like. Everyone else's contributions are subordinate to that.
    On a different tack, let's assume the film was released, but is not notable. Following your reasoning, we couldn't have any redirects from films to actors or directors. Paradoctor (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    I follow your rationale, but there's still the issue of multiple choices of targets. Why not target, say, the production studio or producer, for example instead? Those could potentially be as closely connected to these subjects as the director. And even then, films have been notorious at times to change directors while in production. In addition, the aforementioned actors in my nomination statement also have their respective films mentioned in their filmographies, meaning the films are mentioned, but apparently not identified by more than just their name, in multiple articles. This is why I was hoping that either there was a policy/essay or precedence in place for this already; as far as I can tell, there's really no established place where these redirects should target, meaning the default resolution would be to delete them. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    Film producer: the director makes the creative decisions during the making of the production, the producer typically manages logistics and business operations Fine print aside, the director calls the shots about what the end result looks like.
    potentially be as closely connected to these subjects That's fine print. Edge cases exist, but they don't define the norm.
    change directors while in production Also fine print. A film can have several directors, so we decide on the merits of the case. The norm is one director, and AFAIK, this is the case with the three redirects under consideration.
    the default resolution As I pointed out before, that is not what in practice happens. I note that you didn't address my "different tack", either. The way I see it, what you are asking here for is a substantial policy discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    "that is not what in practice happens" ... That's the problem, I don't see any information about what happens in practice anywhere. My "default resolution" is in regards to what usually occurs to redirects that are deemed ambiguous per WP:XY, such as the issue I see with these. Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943, strengthened by the fact that "upcoming" redirects are WP:COSTLY due to the maintenance burden associated with them when they go out of date. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

NPGPEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

1.19.84Edit

Not mentioned in target Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I have added a mention. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment my first thought was that this referred to 19 January 1984 in US date format, but there is no mention of 19 January in the 1984 article and while 1984 does occur in the 19 January article, it is only in reference to the birth of four sports people (football, ice hockey, motor racing) and the death of a fifth (ice hockey), none of which would make a suitable target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not every term has to be included in the article, but those who have heard of the term or are familiar with the term; see movie quotes as an example. The VICE source cited in the article uses the term (link to such source is here), and multiple other RS's which aren't directly included in the article mention the term (see ArsTechnica (not to be confused with another ArsTechnica article currently cited in the target section), GamesHub, and GameRant). This should be sufficient proof to keep a redirect. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    I will emphasize, since the last two comments seem to imply there is currently no mention, that I have reädded a mention, sourced to Vice. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Lydia WintersEdit

Not in target article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Very weak retarget to Minecon, where she's mentioned twice. I say very weak because "on X date, Y said that Z would happen", when Z is an event that has since happened (or failed to happen), is bad writing and as such those mentions may well be removed someday. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - she apparently works for Mojang Studios, which created Minecraft. Her tweets (not RS quoting her tweets, the tweets themselves) are cited in the Minecon article but that does not create a logical basis to redirect there. If she is notable enough for mention at Mojang Studios or another article, that would be one thing, but that does not seem to be the case at this time. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 06:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

NetheriteEdit

Not in target article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Retarget – Tamzin's suggestion is perfect. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

MooshroomEdit

No longer used or mentioned. It is tagged with r from page history but I can’t find anything relating to a merge. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

GlaucomfleckenEdit

I couldn't make up my mind where to target this redirect, so I created it just to bring it here (arbitrarily picking one of the two options for now). Either this should point to Glaucoma § Signs and symptoms as an {{avoided double redirect|Glaukomflecken}} + {{r from misspelling}}, or it should point to Dr. Glaucomflecken as an {{r from short name}}. On the one hand, WP:SMALLDETAILS would tend toward the latter, since the former is always(?) spelled with a k. On the other hand, Dr. Glaucomflecken's name is not generally abbreviated to just his fictional surname, so one could argue that someone searching just this word is more likely misspelling the glaucoma symptom. Thoughts? Again, the current target was an arbitrary choice, and for now I am undecided. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

SperrungEdit

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and nom. This is a German word that according to Wiktionary generally means "blocking" or "closing off", but in the context of psychiatry is use to mean specifically "thought blocking". There appear no particular affinity between thought blocking and the German language, and the word was removed from the article in 2020 by Desertarun with the explanation "no need for foreign language translations or explanations thereof". The word does appear elsewhere on the English Wikipedia, but only in the title of German-language references but at least mostly in the general sense (e.g. blocking of websites, tunnels and railways), indeed it's worth noting that de:Sperrung is a disambiguation page (there appears to be no article about thought blocking on the German Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I wondered if this was a word introduced by a German psychiatrist but it doesn't look like it and the German Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for the term. Hut 8.5 11:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looked like an attempt at a German dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Stone, MarshalllEdit

Redirect from 2004 with typo in title (triple L). (Stone, Marshall exists and redirects to Marshall H. Stone.) Tea2min (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: This seems pretty unlikely to help with navigation if misspelled, which is generally the purpose of Last name, First Name redirects. TartarTorte 18:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: Implausible typo in this form. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 06:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Db-substubEdit

Misrepresentation of policy. Sub stubs do not qualify for speedy deletion under criteria a1 because they are sub stubs - A1 if for articles where it is impossible to determine the intended topic. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's quite possible for a sub-stub to be eligible for A1 speedy deletion, although I'd have said A3 (no content) was more likely and A7 is likely not uncommon either. However, it is also possible to write a sub-stub that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

P500Edit

Redirect to P-500 Bazalt. This is much better, as I requested for creating the redirect page P-500, which will redirect to that page. 176.88.86.128 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment P500 is literally mentioned in the article. How is P-500 Bazalt better? – The Grid (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Disambiguation seems to be preferable here given the wide range of targets. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Delaware Valley RiverEdit

These terms are unused in parlance and are unlikely to be searched for. The Delaware Valley is a term referring to the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area. The Delaware River is a river that runs on the Eastern border of Pennsylvania dividing it from New Jersey and New York. TartarTorte 18:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Since the valley takes its name from the Delaware River running through it, these redirects do seem properly targeted, though I agree there utility is likely minimal. There is also Delaware River Valley which targets Delaware Valley, though you could make an argument it too should target Delaware River, since it discusses the Upper and Central valleys that are not included in the primary usage of "Delaware Valley" which refers specifically to the lower valley near Philly. It looks like hatnotes and links between these two related topics could use some enhancement. It may also be useful to open a discussion regarding Delaware River Valley at Rfd pending the outcome of this Rfd discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Noitaton hsilop esreverEdit

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop. CiaPan (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: A sibling redirect reported at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_18#Noitaton Hsilop Esrever. --CiaPan (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
And another one at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Noitaton Hsilop esrever. --CiaPan (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete All the same arguments apply as to the twice-deleted Noitaton hsilop. If anything this is worse because it's less concise and writing "reverse" in reverse doesn't make sense as part of the joke; it's like a double negative. (Perhaps this discussion should be merged with one at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Noitaton Hsilop to keep everything in one place. Are there more redirects like this?) – Scyrme (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Yez, it doesn't have to "make sense" as part of a joke, it doesn't have to be funny, we don't have to explain jokes (actually, we do not), it only must make sense as a potential search box input for the redirect to be valid per our guideline WP:REDIR. And that's what it does because as odd as it looks "noitaton hsilop esrever" and its variants are actually used in a few real-world publications (in a supposed-to-be humorous sense, yes, but, again, that's completely irrelevant). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Regardless, the point stands: everything that applied to the other redirect applies to this one; the added text doesn't make it better. – Scyrme (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Scyrme: I disagree that this should be merged into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Noitaton Hsilop since the redirect nominated here is not solely capitalization mismatch since an extra word is included in the redirect's title. Too much of a WP:TRAINWRECK risk. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. You will find hits for it in Google and even in a few (printed) publications, so people occasionally run into the term (in upper- and lowercase variants) in the real world wondering what it is, then turning to Wikipedia and rightfully expecting to get an answer. If we don't have an entry point for it, we are doing them a disservice and leave them uneducated - this is against our goal to create an encyclopedia for everyone to use. Our normal procedure for misnomers like this is to create a redirect to the correct term and tag the redirect with the special rcat {{r from misnomer|correct term}} (as we already do), so that it cannot be confused with a "proper" term. The rcat allows for automatic bot correction of the term if someone would link to it. Per our criteria for redirects WP:REDIR, this redirect cannot cause any kind of confusion as we are explicitly telling users that this is not the official term. It will be only entered into the search box by people running into the term in the real world, and for them, it is clearing up the confusion they are under by pointing them to the correct term per guideline WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5. This is not weaking Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but strenghening it, and by deleting the redirect, we would not improve Wikipedia in the slightest, but making it less reliable. Therefore, keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mattiaspaul's comprehensive reasoning in both discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    These arguments are the same as those raised in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop, and the same counterarguments apply.
    No-one is under the impression that "noitaton hsilop esrever" is a serious misnomer, "official term", or alternative name for this topic, so this a proposed solution to a fictional problem. All the hits are using it in the context of a joke, and joke redirects are a Pandora's box; redirecting jokes to related topics because it can be argued that the joke is common enough is a bad precedent. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or joke book; it is not the job of an encyclopaedia to clear up confusion about jokes. The phrase "noitaton hsilop esrever" does not appear at the target and is not a serious term relevant to that article. The redirect has no educational value because it's simply the phrase "reverse polish notation" backwards, not an actual topic which could have education value and therefore adds nothing to encyclopaedic coverage of the topic; the encyclopaedia is not weakened by its absence or strengthened by its presence. – Scyrme (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    Pandora's box is as irrelevant here as it always is - the existence or otherwise of one redirect has no bearing on whether another should or should not exist because precedent is not binding and we evaluate every redirect on its own merits. Wikipedia's job is to clear up confusion (that is one of the main reason people look things up in an encyclopaedia), and it doesn't matter if that confusion stems from a joke, an academic research paper, a headline in the gutter press or anywhere else. When someone comes across this, doesn't know what it means, and looks it up here they will be taken to the article that educates them that the reference is to "reverse Polish notation". That's educating them right there, especially if they don't know what reverse Polish notation (which is quite probable if they don't get the joke immediately). Everything that helps readers find the content they are looking for strengthens the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop. Same issue/problem applies. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is even less likely than noitaton hsilop as this doesn't even properly do the joke. It's reverse reverse polish notation, which should just be polish notation. These redirects are not helpful even in their current state and if the community cannot agree on whether the joke is to redirect to Polish Notation or Reverse Polish Notation than this joke, and therefore the redirect, is ambiguous under WP:XY. With regards to WP:REDIR, I can't find any of the arguments under Wikipedia:RPURPOSE that would justify the existence of this redirect. TartarTorte 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, we don't need a redirect here just because a few people have made a joke once. Highly implausible. eviolite (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless and funny on-topic joke used in the real world. —Kusma (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a stupid joke is not by itself reason for deletion, but when there is nothing more to it than the stupid joke, I don't think this serves an encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Iraq scandalEdit

There are numerous scandals that could be labelled as "Iraq scandal". I think the inclusion criteria could be a bit hard to develop if DABified, but it's a possibility. I am also ok with deletion as this seems to be broadly unused. TartarTorte 02:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Silmarillion/SindarinEdit

Unlikely format to search for (one would think users would search for either The Silmarillion or Sindarin). As such, it is a misleading and confusing redirect, and there does not seem to be any noteworthy page history despite what the notice says. Probably delete. TNstingray (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete – deletion is probably OK here. It's an old subpage and I history-merged the relevant history to the right place (see the relevant log). I found this nomination because it was mentioned at user talk:0, which is on my watchlist; see User:0 for an explanation of the username. Also see the relevant history at the Nostalgia Wikipedia, which includes the original creator of the redirect (there's no point in notifying them or importing their edit) and the edit that I'd history-merged a while back. Graham87 04:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – there is no history to speak of, and the title is unimaginably improbable as a search term. I doubt that anybody on the WikiProject even knew it was there, or that anyone has intentionally used it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – per nom. --CiaPan (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:R#K4: Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including ... old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. If we're going to start deleting this kind of redirect, it should probably be an RfC. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Tamzin, no Wikipedia articles link to the page at all. There are just deletion discussion pages and a couple of users. Nothing to get all hot and RfCed about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: This page got 498 pageviews in 2021, meaning it's probably linked to from somewhere externally. While it's not necessarily our job to make sure all external links are appropriate, older ones, especially subpages, are WP:CHEAP redirects and this one seems to have some incoming traffic. TartarTorte 18:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tamzin. No real reason to delete has been advanced. Possible harm from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. It's mentioned briefly at the end of a section in Hulk, but so briefly that I don't think a redirect to that page would be suitable. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Student Search ServiceEdit

The SSS is a program of the College Board for high school students that "is an opt-in program that provides your contact information to colleges, exposing you to schools, scholarships, and opportunities — and filling your mailbox." It is not mentioned in the article, certainly not in the linked section, nor elsewhere on enwiki. MB 00:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

MistapeoEdit

Not mentioned in target. Searching doesn't find an RS relating this to Shamanism, but more recently it's from Man and His Symbols MB 00:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete since it's not mentioned at the target and isn't a synonym. Hut 8.5 07:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijan dictatorEdit

I just want to make sure that this is an alright redirect. I know we have some strict rules about articles dealing with living people. The article has multiple sources that back up this claim and I would normally agree that this is correct. If it's clear that I'm wrong I'll withdraw the nomination as a speedy keep, only submitted it because it deals with a living person. Dr vulpes (💬📝) 00:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Do not redirect - This kind of redirect is inappropriate in my opinion. Even if there are sources that depict Ilham as a dictator, there are also sources that do not. This redirect is labeling, which I believe Wikipedia is not intended for. It's one thing to reflect how various sources describe someone; it's quite another to label someone. This, in my perspective, is not only unacceptable for BLP vise, but also drastically destroys neutrality balance. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 04:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep the arguments for deletion are not policy based. BLP does not prohibit well-sourced criticism of living individuals, and there is no requirement for redirects to be neutral: "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". Aliyev's article already discusses the perception of him as a dictator and there are many RS that describe him as such (just a few examples: [14][15][16]) (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. Is keeping that POV redirect policy based? I do not think so. "Azerbaijan dictator"? How does that kind of pointless POV redirect, which does not even seem grammatically correct, improves Wikipedia? The only reasonable explanation I can think of is to redirect Google searches for "Azerbaijan dictator" to the Ilham Aliyev article and that is not appropriate as per WP:G10. Such kind of labeling redirect will create immediate (without reading) impressions not only about the person, but also about the country. If an article states that someone is a dictator based on the sources supplied, that is perfectly OK; but, redirect with such a contentious labeling is inappropriate and distorts neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL it's OK to redirect people from a biased title to a neutral one, and the article lead does say "Many observers see Aliyev as a dictator". Hut 8.5 07:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep I at first was also hesitant but Aliyew is really often mentioned as a dictator and this also by European politicians and in useful sources for Wikipedia. More than the ones brought forward above are found here, here, here here,here, and here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Neither BLP nor any other policy prohibits Wikipedia using redirects from non-neutral search terms to neutrally-titled articles, indeed where a term is in widespread use (as here) such redirects are encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Hut 8.5 According to WP:RNEUTRAL, using non-neutral language is permitted in some circumstances. WP:NPOVNAME, explaining that some circumstances, indicates that non-neutral terms are generally avoided on Wikipedia, with the exception of common names. "Azerbaijan dictator" is not a common name for Ilham Aliyev article.  It is a POV name, and enabling such redirection would be absurd. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 13:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    It isn't a common name for him, but it is a common search term for him. Somebody using this search term on Wikipedia is looking for the encyclopaedia article about the only leader of Azerbaijan to be called a dictator and there is no policy based reason why we should make it harder for them to find that article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    That's a very selective interpretation of RNEUTRAL, which says quite clearly perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Lack of neutrality is pretty much the only reason you've offered for deleting this redirect. WP:NPOVNAME addresses article titles and isn't relevant here because this isn't an article. Hut 8.5 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    WP:RNEUTRAL refers to the WP:NPOVNAME , so it is relevant. There is no reason for inclusion, where there is policy based reasons for not inclusion. "Azerbaijan dictator" is not common name, it is not even a name. With same logic we can also redirect something like "pink pony" to the Ilham Aliyev article. Why not "pink pony"? There is no sufficient reason for its deletion and no reason for inclusion either. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 06:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Thank you everyone for clearing this up for me, again I only pushed this here because this was about a living person and I try really hard to not screw that stuff up. Also sorry to anyone who might have felt attacked or hurt by this nomination, that was never my intent. Dr vulpes (💬📝) 23:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm less troubled by the BLP or NPOV implications of the redirect than its lack of accuracy and its "surprise value". It should redirect to President of Azerbaijan, if anywhere—replace "dictator" with "president" or "leader" and consider where that should go. Indeed, "Azerbaijian dictator" could mean many different things; Joseph Stalin was dictator of the Soviet Union containing Azerbaijan for decades. Finally, it is clearly a very unlikely search term (about 5 pageviews per month). Ovinus (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: No issue with BLP here or with describing Aliyev as a dictator. It's more that as pointed out by Ovinus above, Ilham Aliyev isn't the only appropriate target. In addition to what was mentioned, Heydar Aliyev (Ilham's father) had a 10 year presidency described as dictatorial. This just seems like there's no appropriate target for this term. TartarTorte 17:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

France is baconEdit

"France is bacon" is a mondegreen, but is not mentioned there. I don't really like Francis Bacon or Scientia potentia est either as neither give a sufficient explanation. MB 00:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Added the longer version which was created 7 years ago with an edit summary or "per reddit". It is just a confusing. MB 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete as not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia (or Wikiquote). Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A classic. I don't see any RS coverage of it to justify a mention anywhere, though, so yeah, delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm seeing a couple of mentions of the meme (it apparently resurfaced enough in 2019 for them to take note) in sites like The Poke that are not unreliable, but are also hardly bastions of in-depth journalism and there is also a 2013 article in the Global Times reporting on a similar emergence on Weibo (although Global Times is deprecated for being a tabloid that publishes fake news and Chinese government propaganda, I strongly suspect this particular story is neither). However these don't establish sufficient notability for a mention imo. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete no coverage. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • DELETE - Zero coverage. Hansen SebastianTalk 08:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete the wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of memes --Lenticel (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

September 25Edit

Spunch BobEdit

Not mentioned in target or anywhere else in the encyclopedia. From Internet memes MB 23:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Dulete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The 6 non-parishable foods of the Oregon TrailEdit

User:BobKilcoyne tagged this for speedy deletion, which was converted into a PROD by User:BangJan1999. However, PROD does not apply to redirects, so I am bringing this here. I support BobKilcoyne's rationale for deletion: "the original article/comments appears to lack any sensible purpose, it is an extremely unlikely search term to be used, it incorporates the destination redirect title within the redirect and includes a spelling error". HouseBlastertalk 22:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. The spelling error makes this an unlikely search term, and while the current target does discuss food it doesn't note which items are perishable and which aren't. I suspect the target is actually intended to be The Oregon Trail (series), one of the 5 games in that series or, Oregon Trail (board game) however none of those articles list food items, let alone which are and aren't perishable, so there is no suitable target I can find for a correctly spelled redirect. The article prior to redirection would be speedily deletable under criterion A3 (no content) so there is no issue with deleting article content here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete not a plausible search term with that spelling error and the term isn't discussed in the target article even if correctly spelled. Hut 8.5 07:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Looking the title up yields nothing other than this redirect and sites copy-and-pasting Wikipedia. MightyArms (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Eleanor Butler (Q18528457)Edit

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

Mary Bryan (Q67966025)Edit

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 21#Wikidata redirects. This is a {{R from move}} but the move happened only an hour and a half after creation so is unlikely to have picked up significant usage. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and the other similar redirects nominated today. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikidata redirects are not particularly useful per consensus. TartarTorte 21:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:American EngilshEdit

Unused template redirect and while not a horribly implausible typo if it were in article space, it seems less useful in template space especially as it is unused. TartarTorte 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirects tagged with {{r from misspelling}} are regularly automatically corrected, I believe, so I wouldn't take the lack of use as direct evidence. It's not a super common typo, but also couldn't really point to anything else, so it comes down to what our standards say about when it's okay to have redirects from typos, and I'll defer to others on that. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Implausible typo in template space. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 08:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was no doubt created because someone found this template typo in actual usage. Redirects are cheap. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Unmentioned Candidate's name presidential campaign, 2020Edit

None of these people are mentioned at the target article as their campaigns seemed thoroughly non-notable. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

FreakvilleEdit

I can't see anything that refers to Jacksonville as "Freakville" other than an urban dictionary post that seems to cite the existence of this redirect as a claim. Regardless, it also seems to be used to refer to a variety of other places, but none in common usage enough for it to be DABified. Deletion seems like the best option. TartarTorte 13:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Medical WarningEdit

Unused, confusing template redirect. "Medical Warning" and "More medical citations needed" are in no way synonymous. I think this redirect has the potential to confuse or mislead people looking for actual warning templates (which should not be used, per WP:No disclaimers). 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Note I've left a note at WT:WPMED about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This title was originally created as a template in 2008, but that was speedily deleted the following day under then-applicable criterion T2 for blatantly misrepresenting the policy against disclaimers in articles. The redirect was created apparently independently in 2016. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unhelpful redirect, unlikely to ever be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Nonnotable contentEdit

Unused template redirect that doesn't make sense. The phrase "nonnotable content" is a non-sequitur, the only thing that determines notability is the subject of an article, Notability does not determine the content of articles and the content of articles does not determine notability. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment a template at this title was deleted at TfD in 2013 (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 6#Template Nonnotable content) but a redirect is not substantially identical to a template so this is not a G4 candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: From "nonnotable content", the thing that comes to my mind is content that isn't closely related to the subject of the article. I know there is an acronym somewhere for that but I don't seem to remember it. But yeah, current target looks misleading. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 08:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete agree the target is to do with topics not content so this is confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-nonsenseEdit

Unused and confusing template redirect. Incomprehensible is not remotely synonymous with nonsense, it is entirely possible to write an article which makes complete sense but is incomprehensible, you might have an article written in technical jargon, for example. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and it also being possible to have a fully comprehensible article that is complete nonsense. Template:Nonsense redirects to template:Db-g1, a speedy deletion template, but I don't propose to retarget there as speedy deletion and cleanup are very separate things that should not be conflated. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kouwenhoven (Q45781283)Edit

implausible search term. The id in brackets is a wikidata item id ([17]) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Glitch houseEdit

Not mentioned at target. Listed at Dance music#2010s; all other uses on the English Wikipedia appear to be passing mentions. Could be retargeted to Glitch (music), which gives context and mentions house, despite not describing this style specifically. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Searching "glitch+house" genre, Google provides the information that this is a subgenre of Electro house. Looking over the results though, there don't seem to be any reliable sources using this term in reference to a genre of music. This term does not seem to be in widespread circulation, and searching the term without qualifiers ("genre", "music") produces mostly irrelevant results. It doesn't seem to be a notable topic (yet). I'm not sure why Google seems to think electro house is its parent genre. – Scyrme (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)