Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfD)
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 0 19 19
TfD 0 0 0 1 1
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 0 2 2
RfD 0 0 0 40 40
AfD 0 0 0 4 4

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

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

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion edit

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

The guiding principles of RfD edit

  • 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 deleting edit

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

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

Reasons for not deleting edit

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects edit

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 notes edit

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion edit

STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  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.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
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 of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). 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 respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

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

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

Current list edit

April 24 edit

Colonial haiti edit

Delete. Grammatical errors. (Haiti warrants capitalization and there is currently no redirect for “Colonial Haiti”). Orphan. Serves no useful purpose. Obvious technical error in its creation. Creator is currently serving an indefinite ban. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful, only has 255 pageviews per WMFcloud since it starting counting views back in 2015. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side-dump condola edit

Not a likely typo (the correctly spelled phrase is side dump gondola which has existed as a redirect for a decade). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 23 edit

Format string edit

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • disamig per nom -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move %d to Format specifiers. Retarget Format string to Format specifiers. Jay 💬 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fleshed out Disambig would make sense, but I don't see a disambig as called for just between printf and scanf. Unix manuals and technical manuals are always referring to Printf Format Strings (which are used by many tools), when the word Format String is used, but it's exceptionally rare to find anything other than C manuals referring to scanf strings. The concept of a Format String is a much broader topic, and there are many other kinds of format strings that could be discussed besides the C stdio library - such as strftime strings, Awk, Python f-strings, .Net Format strings , etc. Scanf is a specialization of printf - these two redirect targets would be referring to the same subject matter and Printf and Scanf should link to each other (or a common topic) anyway, regarding the discussion of Format strings, because Scanf format strings are Printf format strings with some additions, removals, and a change of interpretation. The current Scanf article doesn't really address how Scanf formats are different and unique from Printf strings, For example the %[ or %* syntax for strings such as %80[^\n] are not laid out. That is not really an issue.. I would not expect either of the Printf and Scanf articles on Wikipedia to serve as a technical manual or programming tutorial for these functions. I would think it should suffice to have a discussion on what format strings are for Printf and Scanf in one place, and Link to the official BSD or GNU C library's documentation. I say Printf, because the printf article has the better discussion of Format specifiers, and Scanf's is limited, except where they link to the Printf article --Mysidia (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mysidia: Well, since as you correctly said "format string" is a more general topic than C's printf/scanf and we currently don't cover it anywhere, we should delete per WP:REDYES, no? Then an article that covers all the contexts format strings can appear in should be written at format string. Nickps (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to free space for an article per user:Nickps. The idea is present in many APIs (not just languages, C and Python include, for example, strftime/strptime/datetime with their own format specifiers, etc.). It is relatively easy to find non-language-specific sources of good quality. --Викидим (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last. Any thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format specifiers edit

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambig or move?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last. Any thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DZHH-AM edit

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodynamics of nanostructures edit

The redirect should be deleted. The name of the page was an error, it appears that an editor thought that Thermodynamics was short for Thermal dynamics which it is not. The page has been changed to the more appropriate title Thermal transport in nanostructures. The redirect is incorrect, as it is not on thermodynamics, so would take readers in the wrong direction. I cannot find an actual page on thermodynamics in nanostructures, so it should be removed for the moment. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now as an {{R from move}}, unless the phrase clashes with another topic. The article has used the former title for almost ten years and may become hard to find without the redirect. ― Synpath 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the old name is misleading -- that should matter most. The science clashes. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:32, 10 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    N.B., the redirect is comparable to having a redirect from "Star" "Satellite" to "Milky Way" -- misleading without rationale. Please check the article content. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how misleading the redirect really is. As far as I understand, the physics of thermal transport would be a subset of thermodynamics. If I'm hopelessly wrong there, then sure, it might be harmful enough to delete. Even then, I don't think that this is wholly unreasonable thing to be mistaken about (hence a useful redirect).
    Regardless, deleting the redirect would break several internal links, which are easy to fix, but one should do that ahead of deletion. External links might exist as well, but that's more difficult to assess. I'd say that the redirect should be left alone for a month or three to see if it becomes unused. If that is established then it may make sense to revisit deleting this, but it still seems WP:CHEAP to keep around. ― Synpath 00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but yup, you are very wrong. Thermal transport is exactly what it says, how heat via vibrations (phonons) or electrons is transmitted from one place to another, for instance compare copper to an insulator such as glass wool. The topic is relevant as it changes at the nanoscale.
    Thermodynamics is all about what phase you have and how it varies with composition, temperature, pressure, gas environment etc. For instance why you can melt ice by adding salt to it, the solution freezes at a much lower temperature. Thermodynamics at the nanoscale is important, but has nothing to do with heat transfer. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thermal transport is akin to ocean heating or magma flow. Thermodynamics is the (theoretical) study of ergodic systems with a large number of particles and the conservation of energy. It would seem the original article was created with a typo in the title; its pointless to preserve typos. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was moved two weeks back. Internal incoming links need to be fixed first per Synpath. Jay 💬 15:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All incoming links bypassed or removed. This discussion can now be relisted to determine what to do with this redirect. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irreducible manifold edit

These should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fort Blakely and Spanish Fort edit

WP:XY, Battle of Spanish Fort is a separate article; both battles/forts are mentioned in both articles, so there is no obvious target, and Battle of Spanish Fort occurred first, making the order confusing. Moreover, Fort Blakeley is misspelled. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hulks edit

The characters have no plural form, so should we retarget to Hulk (disambiguation), soft redirect to wiktionary:hulks, or delete? 176.42.16.148 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Druggie edit

For possible deletion, or maybe a redirect to a page which discusses the slur rather than the addiction. Note that this initially redirected to Substance dependence; I changed it to the current redirect to fit with drug addict GnocchiFan (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of appommatox courthouse edit

The misspelling combined with the miscapitalization make this not very useful. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Courthouse" and "Court House" are variant spellings, and it isn't too surprising that someone would type it in lowercase. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Appomattox is also misspelled. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dextette edit

i thought it was a peachette deal, but it's not even that. two characters in the gen 3 anime refer to the pokédex as that sometimes maybe probably, and that's as far as it seems to go cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Badge edit

that's brock's badge, for context. not notable on its own, aside from how boring it looks, and this probably wouldn't be the right target anyway cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to recommend retargeting to Brock (Pokémon), but it somehow doesn't mention the Boulder Badge by name. Which is exceedingly odd? You'd think that'd be one of the more notable details about the character, the fact that he's a gym leader that gives out the Boulder Badge. The entire article needs a coat of Rock Polish anyways tbh... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aku Type edit

what cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i did some looking, and it's a word in some languages, and could refer to the fire, water, electric, and dark types, given some mental gymnastics, but it's mostly an informal-ish first person pronoun. no idea what basis i think this should be deleted on, but i want this gone cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokédex (Sinnoh) edit

retarget to the list of gen 4 pokémon? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sinnoh Pokédex doesn't only include Gen 4 pokémon, but it isn't unlikely that someone would be looking for these specifically when typing it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full Pokedex edit

retarget to the list of pokémon or delete, this ain't the full pokédex cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, as that is what a reader would likely expect. ("Full Pokedex" not even having a mention there.) CitationsFreak (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Pokémon edit

not sure if this is referring to bird pokémon (like corviknight and the worse corviknight), in which case i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon or delete (more so delete) or to the unused bird type, in which case redirect to missingno without a second or first thought cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Legendary Pokémon edit

i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon, even though it's a list of all the pokémon cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support There isn't even a Legendary Pokémon anchor at the current target, while List of Pokémon does have legendary pokémon indicated. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Legendary Pokémon edit

i'd say retarget to kyogre, as it's the first in the weather trio cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Retargeting to List of generation III Pokémon#Kyogre shows the whole Weather Trio on the page. Again, current anchor is non-existent. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Master edit

is this really the best place to target, as opposed to pokémon masters ex? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Crystal Health Items list edit

not a list of health items (whatever that's supposed to mean), or focused specifically on crystal cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Pokémon edit

maybe retarget to the list of pokémon as with mythical pokémon? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to match Mythical Pokémon as per Cogsan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just noticed the 4rd one has a minor spelling mistake, should it be deleted? i'd say delete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeltown edit

This is not attested anywhere, and its addition to the article was solely referenced to the article's "version history". 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just added a {{cn}} at the target. The article was titled Hazeltown and mention has been there right from the first edit in 2008 - Keep as long as the mention is there. Jay 💬 13:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: any thoughts on keeping the redrect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of attestation; just because something has been there since 2008 doesn't mean it's right. (Of course, just because something cannot be cited doesn't mean it isn't true - but it does mean we should exclude it and the redirect from Wikipedia until we're 100% sure). --GnocchiFan (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of Bessarabia edit

Nonsense redirects. Bessarabia is a region in Eastern Europe. Budjak is a subset of it. Super Ψ Dro 12:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Bessarabia Governorate. "Province" appears to be an alternative translation (see [1], [2], etc.) - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In both links you gave province is not capitalized, there is no proper names but a descriptive combination of words. There was also Bessarabia Governorate (Romania) by the way. We could disambiguate but I see it as really unnecessary. Also, come on, The Province of Bessarabia is completely implausible, it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter if it's not capitalized in the specific sources I found? It will still be a plausible search term. I thought about disambiguation, but I think the hatnote at the proposed target is sufficient. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the key word in the nominating statement is: "is". Bessarabia is a larger region in Eastern Europe. However, it appears that it was a smaller Turkish province/governate/eyalet, from the late 15th century through the early 19th century. Here's the article as it stood before being redirected in 2005:

    The Province of Bessarabia or Besarabya pashalyk in Turkish, was an Ottoman province from 1478 to 1812. Its size varied, however by 1600, it included the towns of Cetatea Alba, Izmail, Tighina, and Kilia.
    The Ottoman Province of Bassarabia was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1812, along with all Moldovan territory east of the Prut river, which the Russians governed jointly in one single Russian province of Bessarabia.
    The Ottoman Province, only, is more or less the same size as the territory of modern-day Bugeac, which is currently part of the Ukrainian Odessa oblast.

    This is uncited but sounds plausible, and it aligns with the bit in Budjak#Name and geography (i.e., the redirect's target) that uses the name historic Bessarabia. There are sources such as this 1927 book (about the Russian annexation of the province) and this 2019 book (about ethnicity, but summarizing the pre-Russian state, in which Bessarabia was vaguely delimited but generally congruent with Budjak), and "province"+"bessarabia"&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover this book (which confirms Izmail was part of the province of Bessarabia when the Russians took the province from the Ottomans, before they gave it to Moldovia) that verify at least parts of it. At any rate, though I'm unfamiliar with the history of this area, it appears that it's not "nonsense", but merely a detail of history that is not widely known. Consequently, we should probably keep this redirect, and probably improve the target article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Bessarabia given the ambiguity of several historical provinces being named "Bessarabia". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavia Province, Ottoman Empire edit

The Principality of Moldavia was never a "province" of the Ottoman Empire. It was never a part of the empire. It always remained a separate country with its own laws and administration under vassalage. These redirects are inaccurate and misleading. Also the "Bogdan/Bogdania/Boğdan" redirects are made up original research. Super Ψ Dro 12:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Moldavia Province and Boğdan Province Referred to as such in several books (on "Moldavia," see [3], [4], [5], etc.) (on "Boğdan," see [6] and [7]). Cannot find references for the others, so delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects. Moldavia (known in Turkish as Boğdan) was never a formal part of the Ottoman Empire, much less something organized into a province. If anything some parts of Moldavia, fractions, were formally annexed and organized into distinct sanjaks ("provinces") that did not even border each other [8] [9], adding a layer of ambiguity to this issue. That sources with a wide general scope have chosen to use a common word to describe a detail that was clearly not given much attention do not change Moldavia's status in the past. Professional academic sources on the history of Romania will never refer to Moldavia as a "province". Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned about the inaccuracy, the redirects can be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}. As it stands, there are indeed sources which refer to this area as a "province" of the Ottoman Empire, so the redirects are plausible search terms. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea (I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects) seems to come up fairly often. The telephone game by which we teach editors how Wikipedia works is not good at this kind of subject. So, because a lot of editors don't know, let me say that the point of a redirect is not to be accurate information, but to take readers to accurate information. An incorrect name can make a perfectly fine redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor edit

I would like to delete the redirect "Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor" so that I can move the current article, "Adelaide–Darwin railway line" to the name currently occupied by the redirect.

Rationale: There are 5 major rail corridors between Australia's capital cities (as in the map here). For 4 of them, the Wikipedia article uses the word "corridor" (example: Sydney–Brisbane rail corridor). Only the Adelaide–Darwin one uses "line". The action requested would unify the terminology of all five. SCHolar44 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You will likely have a faster reply at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, but I support the technical deletion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law of fives edit

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discordian concept (e.g. [10]), so the redirect should go to Discordianism. Furius (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, what is this mass deletion of much of Discordian concepts? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore relevant section, which can be found here. I'll note that there may be more-recent revisions of this section somewhere in the page history and/or relevant sources to cite (given the section I'm linking didn't have sources at this time); finding said sources/newer revisions will be an exercise left to the editor, given holy hell, the page history for this page is a nightmare. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This cannot be restored as it is unsourced (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the correct page in the Principia Discordia (the holy book of this religion), and should serve as a fairly good source for this section, especially given it already claims to (and upon checking, DOES) quote said book. As a note, this took FIVE SECONDS to find, given said book is literally linked to, multiple times, by both this old version of the page AND the current version.
    There's a time and a place to use WP:BURDEN. "I don't feel like taking a five second check to see if I can find a source myself in the most obvious spot(s)" isn't the time nor place. (edit at 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the Bible is most of the time not a RS to talk about Christianity, using this book the way you propose is OR from a primary source and not the use of a secondary RS. Primary sources should often be avoided, and in this case it should. Yes, you can WP:SELFSOURCE, but the relevance of the information (WP:ONUS) is to be decided by secondary sources (do they mention the information? do they say it is an important information, how much do they dedicate to said information?) and not by the presence of redirects. Veverve (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all right, let's just check the next most obvious spot, being one of the sources we already have, and... Oh hey look, Invented Religions (the book cited multiple times already in these discussions) has a mention of the Law of Fives, too.
    Would be helpful if Google Books had a way to see the full discussion of the topic without buying the book but w/e
    In any case, that brings me back to my main point, there-- it's unhelpful, and actively harmful, to take a broad hatchet and hack away at unsourced parts of an article without first checking the most obvious places to see if you can find a source yourself. Those most obvious places including texts referenced in/quoted by the article without linking to them (which can quickly become sourcing FROM those texts), texts already used as sources elsewhere in the article, and a five-second search on Google Books. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but restore if the secondary sources mentioned above are used to write about the Law of Fives in the main article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronomian edit

The target article does not mention the word “Pronomian” nor explain what the word means. Bwrs (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to be an R from antonym, given the "Anti-" in the target article is getting swapped for "Pro-", with the implication that the views of "Pronomians" are opposite that of "Antinomians". That said, I'd like to point out that R from Antonym as an rcat is one of those rcats that populates a maintenance category, so we can't just tag as Antonym and keep. (Which is odd to me? If we don't have an article on something, but we have an article on its direct opposite, and we can reasonably and competently explain the first thing as "the complete opposite of this second thing", then that seems to be a good place to have a redirect. Why is this rcat populating a maintenance category?) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really know for a fact that pronomianism is the opposite of antinomianism, or do we merely assume so based on the fact that “pro-” is the opposite of “anti-”? Now, if I really wanted to rid Wikipedia of these redirects I can tell you that they were made by somebody who is the subject of an WP:Office action. But the Wikipedia:Office never publishes the reasons for its actions, and I hope that discussing it here might raise the attention of subject matter experts who know what pronomianism actually is. Bwrs (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe we should redirect to Christian views on the Old Covenant. Antinomianism is usually used to mean a particular deviation from the mainstream Christian view (though we do a bad job of defining it in the article), so I don’t think this is an antonym, just another niche view.— JFHutson (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although that might be the most appropriate redirection target, it does not define the term either. Nowhere does the string “pronomian” appear in either the current target or in the new proposed target. This is one of my pet peeves, when a word I do not know redirects to an article that does not define this word. Bwrs (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with deletion as well, as I doubt the redirect could be helpful to anyone.-- JFHutson (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Mountain (logo) edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While the logo might be a mountain, the words "dark" nor "mountain" do not appear anywhere at the target page. We don't have any encyclopedic about a dark mountain logo, which encyclopedic content about a logo seems to be specifically requested through this search term, by including "logo" in the title. With this being tagged as a "related meme without a mention", I'm not too convinced about its plausibility standalone. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not specific enough, a description of the logo shouldn't be a redirect target if the logo hasn't actually be called like this. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The logo doesn't seem to be referred to as this nor does this seem to be a meme. The mountain in the logo is white anyways. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Deco edit

I presume this might have once been [mentioned], but now this concept of Dark Deco is not mentioned at the target. It has minor mentions across Wikipedia in reference to properties such as Batman: The Animated Series (across this and 2 other related pages, Gotham City and Andrea Beaumont), and also at Skullgirls in a quote. As it looks like 75% of all mentions of "Dark Deco" are at Batman pages, perhaps sending this to Batman: The Animated Series is the primary topic? Searching "Dark Deco" externally, 50% of my results are all Batman, with the rest of the topics being neologism hodgepodge across blogs and such. Now that I look into this more, I'm close to believing that "Dark Deco" is a specific Batman-related topic, and one that we cover across multiple Batman pages and basically nowhere else, but I wanted to bring this here as the current target has been fairly longstanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Catching edit

A film that is not mentioned at the target article. I presume it's about the target, but with no mentions to Mill, the connection is unclear? Dreamcatching is a similar redirect that currently points to Dreamcatcher, which this is a variation of. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winged spear edit

Between Corseque, Spetum, and the fact that this redirect is not mentioned in the current target, it's not clear which subject readers are desiring to locate when searching this term. (However, used to be a section at Polearm#Winged spear, a section which was present in 2012, but was removed at some point that year.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit the Bohemian Earspoon is not the most obvious redirect. Winged spears are probably ancestral to the spetum and corseque too. If I were to plump for one, it would probably be spetum. But there is an argument that a separate article or article section on the weapon would ultimately be preferable. Be hard to make it above a start though. Monstrelet (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes me wonder if the section I linked which existed over a decade ago should be restored, or even used to overwrite the nominated redirect with an article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link baiting edit

Deletion, link baiting differs from clickbait to the degree that the redirect is misleading. Link baiting does not have the deceptive nature of clickbait. [1] Acalc79 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

I don't suppose I could ask how you're defining "link baiting?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
apparently, the difference is the target demographic
clickbait is for general #ContentConsumers™ who love consuming content. for examples, uh, open up youtube and go to incognito mode
link bait is for creators, to try to get them to advertise, sponsor, or otherwise promote your slop. for an example, get offered a raidy shady sponsorship i think
so my pedantic ass would say delete unless a section or article on link bait can be made cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is ambiguous. Link bait can mean both "clickbait" as well as "content designed to attract incoming links". We have no content to link to for the latter meaning, so there is nothing to do for now. Paradoctor (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanator.com edit

Target article doesn't mention Japanator. Anyone has any idea? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually tried digging around, including the history of the (now community banned) person that created the redirect. Maybe a troll creation? No valid reason can be found, so Delete. Dennis Brown - 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not a troll creation. I found this redirect by a link from another article. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanator should be bundled as well, I think? Not a super simple history. It was a sibling-ish site of Destructoid for quite awhile,[11][12] then was merged into Siliconera [13]. And so was part of Enthusiast Gaming (a possible retarget since it's mentioned there) but then Gamurs acquired some sites from Enthusiast (including Siliconera). So I think retarget to Enthusiast Gaming since it's mentioned there, including the transfer to Gamurs, and most of its system was part of that. Gamurs would be a fine (future) retarget if it's expanded. And open to other ideas if people know more (sadly lots of noise from the, hm, particular era that impacted gaming sites). (Pinging Neocorelight and Dennis Brown.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skynxnex Please do the bundling. I don't know how to. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neocorelight added (I think, oddly this is something I haven't done a ton of). Skynxnex (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gamurs would be an ideal target, but if no one's gonna write a mention of Japanator then I'm fine with retargeting to Enthusiast Gaming. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think redirecting it to an article with an unsourced single line mention is a good idea. For the redirect to stay, somewhere there needs to be a cite at least demonstrating it existed. Dennis Brown - 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added one. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the way to Aberystwyth edit

Not mentioned at target. Youtube suggests it's a parody version of the song, but it's not mentioned here, and doesn't look to be widely covered, and thus an implausible search term in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

52nd International Film Festival Rotterdam edit

Misleading redirect, actually pointing to the 51st edition of the festival. Per WP:REDLINK a redlink would be more useful, as it would encourage editors to create the page, and not giving them the impression the page already exists. Cavarrone 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as misleading, and also to encourage creation of an actual article about the 52th event. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joseph. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian concession in Sarandë edit

Romanian Institute in Albania was originally created under this title. The author, blocked since 2019, appears to have misread the sources he used. Albania granted a Romanian historian property in Sarandë and he established an institute on it and granted half of the land to the Romanian state, but this does not mean a part of Sarandë stopped being a sovereign part of Albania to become part of Romania. The "concession" thing is original research. No sources talk about this using the word "concession" [14]. This is ultimately a hoax. Draft:Romanian concession in Sarandë should be deleted too. Super Ψ Dro 13:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also bundled Draft:Romanian concession in Sarandë and notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bessel potential space edit

Sobolev space#Bessel potential spaces seems like a more precise target (though the articles should also ideally link to each other). 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balon D´Or edit

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 10:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balon de Oro edit

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 10:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RLANG. I think this is probably a rendering of the Spanish name for this trophy, Balón de Oro, without the diacritic. Since this award has no particular affinity to Spanish, I see no reason to keep. (Note that the version with the diacritic does not exist). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no specific ties to Spanish (as it's a French magazine award), so Spanish name redirect not needed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European footballer of the year edit

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 10:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Miles edit

PROD'ed but redirects are ineligible for that process. The original PROD statement was: Redirects to an article that doesn't mention Miles. Appears reasonable to me, this person doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned in the target article as far as I can tell and I don't immediately see a good alternative target. Pinging original nominator: @Frankoceanreal. Tollens (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appomatox coart house surrender edit

The double misspelling (both Appomattox and Court) with the miscapitalization on top makes this highly unlikely to be useful. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unlikely misspelling. Odd that this has been around for 12 years but it doesn't seem to be an {{R from move}} or anything else that we'd usually keep for an odd reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bounding Into Comics edit

The two seem unrelated. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 22 edit

Climate change in Bahrain edit

We currently have many "Climate change in country x" titles that redirect to either "Geography of country x" or "Climate of country x". The style guide of WikiProject Climate change describe many aspects that should be in "Climate change in country x" articles that do not belong in articles about the climate or geography of country x. E.g. an article about climate change in a given country is supposed to discuss the greenhouse gas emissions that the country produces and the policies around emissions reductions in the country. The presence of these redirects discourages the creation of more complete articles so I propose that they be deleted. There are many other redirects following the pattern but I am starting with four of them to get community feedback before mass-nominating dozens. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:RFDHOWTO says that new nominations go to the top of the page. I moved the discussion accordingly. Nickps (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot: Deleting these redirects might also discourage the creation of more complete articles. Should an article about the climate of a given country not describe the effects of climate change in that country? Jarble (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Climate in country x" articles should describe the effects of climate change in that country. These redirects are not necessary to make those expansions happen. What these redirects do is leave no place to talk about the role of the country in causing climate change. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support. If the deletion of the redirects is likely to lead to creations of new CCC articles then I am all for it (CCC = climate change in country X). I've been disappointed myself on a few occasions when I followed a link of "climate change in Country X", only to find that I was being redirected to "Country X#Climate" which then had only minimal info on climate change in that country. EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Chinese FA Super Cup edit

The subject never existed to begin with, similar to the 2022 edition in the same compeition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IDontHaveSkype (talkcontribs) 10:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect was not tagged for RfD, I have now done it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Possible search term based on the other yearly versions that exist. There's a brief explanation that the cup for this season was cancelled, which is contextually relevant and useful. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sensible redirect, as the main article explains it was cancelled. Also assists with categorisation, which clearly lists the event in the cancelled category. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deplorable edit

Another confusing vocabulary word redirect. Not everything that is deplorable is part of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables". We don't have deplore, so maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary will have to do. Duckmather (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki to wiktionary per nom Okmrman (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Delete I'm partial to the stance in the previous discussion that search results are adequate here and there does not need to be a DAB page for partial title matches. However, there are partial title matches so I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is the best option. Though, I'm not really familiar with when it is best to use them. ― Synpath 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Combine a {{Wiktionary}} link with a “see also” section as well. Bwrs (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

📵 edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I'm going to mark this for speedy deletion since there were suggestions in the original deletion discussion to redirect it to Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette, which quickly got put down but someone still redirected it here anyways. I'm just gonna make this discussion to see if the discussion still holds up since it happened all the way back in 2015. Okmrman (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previous discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#📵 Okmrman (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the time of that discussion in August 2015 this was a redirect to Mobile phones and driving safety, the present target was considered but rejected and it closed with a consensus to delete. The present iteration was created in February 2016, but as it has a different target (and things might have changed in 9 years) I've declined a G4 speedy deletion nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, disambig or write a broad concept article. There should be a disambig or broad concept article about prohibition/restriction and similar of mobile phone use. In addition to the current target, such is discussed (in various contexts) at Mobile phone jammer, Mobile phones in prisons, Mobile phones on aircraft, Mobile phone use in schools, Mobile phones and driving safety, Radio quiet zone and possibly others. In the absence of such a page, then we should target where the character is mentioned. There are three such pages but No symbol#Unicode and fonts is by far the most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are so many different ways to interpret this emoji, the majority of readers are going to be disappointed. Cremastra (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what ways other than "no mobile phones" can you interpret this? Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mobile phone#Use. That section has subsections on the prohibition/restriction of mobile phones in various contexts, such as while driving, while walking and in schools. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the main section, and most of the subsections, are about the opposite of "no mobile phones" I think this would be a very confusing target so I don't support this suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good thing; explaining where mobile phones are allowed is good context for establishing where mobile phones are not allowed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to use this redirect I would be looking for information about where, why and/or how mobile phone use is prohibited or restricted, not information about where they aren't. I was confused about why you were suggesting a target that was the opposite of what the symbol means, having already read your rationale for suggesting it. Someone who doesn't have that context will likely be even more confused.
    I intend to draft something better (probably a broad concept page, but I'm not certain yet) but it'll likely be Monday or Tuesday before I get time. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I originally explained, the section I recommend does have information about where, why and/or how mobile phone use is prohibited or restricted. That section could be better formatted to suit those needs, as well as include other information and links to eg mobile phones in prison or mobile phones on aircraft. If you feel that section is confusing (I have no idea where you get that sense from), that is where I would suggest your efforts be spent. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The section is not confusing in the context of the article. Arriving at that section when searching 📵 is what is confusing. Rearranging the article to account for one incoming redirect to it would not be an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted disambig/broad concept article hybrid at Restrictions on mobile phone use, it needs work but it's a better target than anything else we have. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you've taken the relevant concepts from Mobile phone#use and turned it into an outline form. To demonstrate that all it takes is a bit of rearranging and adding of sections to make it "less confusing", I present Mobile phone#Restrictions. A separate page is wholly unnecessary. -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to a better target, do not delete. An emoji is a valid search term. Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 14:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For context, when the emoji was added as part of Unicode 6.0, its definition is where phones are forbidden. Just like the "no one under 18" emoji means that anyone under 18 is forbidden. That's the best way to interpret the emoji as how it's formally defined from the discussion above. – The Grid (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Abd-al-Rahman I of the Umayyad Sultanate edit

Unique for Wikipedia. Not seen in the wild. Unlikely to be typed due to complexity.. Delete. Викидим (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 14:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Rhodes (murderer) edit

Since Walter Rhodes was not convicted of murder, the title of this page is misleading and an injustice. As there are multiple people by this name at Walter Rhodes, I am not sure if this page should simply be deleted or disambiguated differently. Gjs238 (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the relevant section is incompletely sourced, but currently reads: "Rhodes entered into a plea agreement for a reduced sentence of second degree murder in exchange for his testimony against Tafero and Jacobs.[4] At their trial, he testified that Jacobs fired first from the back seat, then Tafero took the gun from her and shot the two officers.[5] Rhodes later recanted his testimony on three occasions, in 1977, 1979 and 1982, stating that he shot the policemen, but ultimately reverted to his original testimony.[8]...Tafero and Jacobs were convicted of capital murder and were sentenced to death while Rhodes was sentenced to three life terms.
So it appears that he was convicted of murder, though he switched his plea a few times. Am I reading the references incorrectly? Wikishovel (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Rhodes was sentenced to three life terms." If that reference is correct, than it would seem that the redirect should remain in place and is accurate. Gjs238 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added another RS for the three life terms: [15]. Wikishovel (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems like a bad modifier altogether. In the past, the article Michael Peterson (criminal) had several issues until we got it moved to a more neutral Michael Peterson trial. As this is a redirect, I don't know what a more neutral modifier would be. – The Grid (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:← edit

Ambiguous with Wikipedia:Indentation § Outdenting due to {{outdent2}}. Dabifying this may also help stop people from using od2 in articles (see the infobox in [16]). Nickps (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Koung 64 edit

implausible misspelling cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood and the United Kingdom and Ireland edit

Recently accepted at WP:AFC/R (here & here), but - as far as I can see - the target article only contains information about the United Kingdom, not Ireland. In addition, if Hollywood and the Republic of Ireland existed as an article, it would be unclear whether a reader was looking for information about Hollywood and the UK, or about Hollywood and Ireland. I'm therefore proposing deletion per WP:XY & WP:R#D2, as the inclusion of Ireland in these redirects (when it isn't mentioned at the target article) could cause confusion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood and the Republic of Ireland edit

Recently accepted at WP:AFC/R, but - as far as I can see - the target page doesn't include any mention of Ireland. Proposing deletion per WP:R#D10/WP:REDLINK. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't mention Ireland once. There is no reason why a redirect about Ireland should point to a page about another country. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Abbott edit

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The name today (according to a quick Google search) is more closely associated with Helen Blenkinsop, for which we don't have an article. While Samuel Spewack also used the name as a pseudonym and would warrant a disambiguating hatnote should an article exist on the primary topic, redirecting as-is is more likely to confuse readers. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blenkinsop is a recent user of the name (there's also the author of The Bazique-player's Hand-book, and various others). If you are prepared to write an article for her, then great. If not, don't destroy a valid redirect on that basis. (There also some other A. A. Abbotts.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Also the founder of this town: Kalkaska, Michigan. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • comment would this is better off as a set index? --Lenticel (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep adding a mention at the target is most appropriate here. Frank Anchor 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and others as ambiguous. I tried to see if I can add a mention to the current target, but did not find sources. The current target is also poorly sourced. Jay 💬 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oorum Unavum edit

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Page history didn't seem very useful either. DrowssapSMM 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD if not notable, was an article for 7 years before being single-handedly blanked by an IP a couple months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or restore?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Trotskij edit

Delete per WP:RFD#D8. This appears to be the spelling of Trotsky's name in various North Germanic languages and this spelling isn't used in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be the spelling of his name in Danish and Norwegian, neither of which are particularly relevant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the target does mention the transliteration in the Notes. There is also Leo Trotskij from 2005. Jay 💬 07:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't noticed that before, but it appears to just be this uncited bit here: "also transliterated Lyev, Trotski, Trotskij, Trockij and Trotzky." I've seen no evidence that Trotskij is a valid English transliteration, rather than the transliteration into the languages that have been identified here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a {{cn}} but you are free to remove the mention. Jay 💬 04:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function edit

Without a mention of "easing", making this already not a great target, there's also no mention of a "function" at the target either. While the page admittedly talks about an "ease-in" and an "ease-out", this is not necessarily an "easing function" and several other topics deal with "easing" as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function is a common term in computer graphics, see [17] [18]. Maybe there's a better redirect target, or a new article is warranted, but this was the best I could find. 11wx (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackahuahua edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Dog breed redirected at a 2008 AfD, seemingly been unmentioned at the target for over a decade. It's misleading to maintain breed redirect for a dog type that holds zero information on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could go to list of dog crossbreeds but that page doesn't mention it; however, it's only had 3 views in the past 30 days which probably includes me looking at it. I don't think this designer dog breed has much notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2003 edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some further unique history. Unlike Jan 2, this has been to RfD before, and closed as no consensus. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2, 2003 edit

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some history. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Tierney edit

No discussion of a character called "Kyra Tierney" at the target article. Only mention on Wikipedia is at the disambig page for Tierney linking here, but the presence of a blue link implies we have content about this character, which we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep. It seems "Kyra Tierney" is an actual character in the show, so it’s reasonable to expect someone searching the character's name on Wikipedia would be interested in that particular article. Slamforeman (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 French Open – Men's doubles edit

The events are currently a month away. It is the case of WP:TOOSOON

All these also redirects towards 2024 French Open#Events

PrinceofPunjabTALK 05:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PrinceofPunjab, FYI, this isn't the correct format to use for a multi-RfD. I'll reformat the listing & tag the other redirects for you now. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reformatted nomination and tagged all nominated redirects :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though the sections are currently blank, they are all mentioned in the article. I don't see the harm in going ahead and establishing these redirects. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This doesn't fit the definition of WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTALBALL, as the events have indeed been confirmed and scheduled. These are useful redirects that can be expanded later on if/when the individual articles are notable enough to standalone. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion edit

Nominating for deletion. The redirect is overly specific and too long and is therefore an unlikely search term. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the discussion closed a year ago last week. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per Thryduulf and WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close I didn't realise that their had already been a previous discussion on this redirect, I was kind of tired when I nominated it and forgot to check. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere in the article, but most importantly, not mentioned ANYWHERE on the Internet. If this was a news headline that could be hypothetically copied in, that'd be understandable(??) but still incredibly unlikely to be naturally searched. This is just, bits and pieces of the articles opening sentence and lead, but as a redirect. Restating the prose of the article, but as a redirect, makes these specific 14 words a novel and obscure synonym for the subject, (evidenced from no user on the Internet has said this ever with zero results outside of Wikipedia). It can't even be a synonym, it's a synopsis. It's unsearchable as a string of words that exists nowhere else, and a year later has STILL never been stated anywhere else on the Internet. The alternative redirect being: 10-year-old (the rest of the title) "from Ohio to Indiana" already exists and is the stylization that seemingly headlined in reports. I don't really like that redirect either, but at least the title benefits from existing, and can be copied into the search bar and/or can appear first when users start typing this in, if they happen to start their search with "ten-dash-year-dash-old" exactly. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects are not the way to promote very tenuous news reporting. See the NPR reporting in some detail on (probably?) this case, [19]. Essentially, we will most likely never get the facts straight (whatever the truth is, due to privacy concerns), so there is nothing of notability here for the article. Redirecting a headline of a single-source new story with no corroboration to our article where for this very reason the story cannot be published does not seem to be useful for anyone. --Викидим (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Okmrman (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a plausible search term, largely due to its length. Shocking to me that this was apparently discussed before and it didn't lead to a delete then... Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is a variation of 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion which I brought up at the previous RfD and suggested bundling. Either both would have been deleted, or neither, and there was support for keeping the latter as an actual headline, the reason I didn't vote the last time, and also because I probably expected the previous RfD to go for a second relist. Jay 💬 08:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - whilst is is very long and specific, it is likely that someone could look it up. Also WP:CHEAP. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects may be cheap, but that doesn't mean we have to keep absurdly implausible ones like this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Nor does that mean that we need to delete them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a novel and very obscure synonym for the subject, deleteable per WP:RDEL #8. The title is WP:SYNTH taken from pieces of the article's synopsis and extended in an unnatural fashion that is more of a Google-search random-selection of details and explanations, also appears nowhere on the entire Internet. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps not especially plausible but harmless and takes people where they clearly intend to go. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this one more time. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: extremely implausible search term. DrowssapSMM 02:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete keeping every potential news headline as a redirect on the very small chance someone may look it up is quite useless and is a WP:SYNTH concern. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nobody has made a very convincing argument that this redirect is harmful other than being an "implausible search term", which in fact is not one of the reasons for deletion. Redirects don't exist solely as standards-compliant search keywords, nor is there any requirement whatsoever for them to be concise or short. People use Wikipedia in different ways; the fact that this title was created is evidence that someone thought it was useful, as are its non-zero pageview stats. The arguments that this title is a WP:SYNTH issue or actively confusing don't make sense to me:
    • "10-year-old" - the girl was 10 years old at the time
    • "Ohio" - these events occurred at least partially in Ohio
    • "child rape victim" - the girl is a victim of sexual assault
    • "required to cross state lines to get an abortion" - law prevented her getting an abortion in the state she was in, thus in order to obtain an abortion she was required to travel to another state
None of this is synth: it's all described in the very first sentence of the article, with multiple citations. In the absence of compelling arguments for deletion, redirects are cheap. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, while my vote for this redirect is keep as per WP:CHEAP, I'd like to point out that implausibility is an outgrowth of WP:RGUIDE point 1: "If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect." The opposite of that-- "if it's not plausible for someone to enter the name, we shouldn't keep"-- doesn't require too much logic to reach, is aided by the implication that such an implausible redirect would be inherently unhelpful, and historically has been used quite often as a benchmark for redirects, being the basis upon which WP:RTYPO, WP:RLANG, WP:MIXEDSCRIPT, and other such oft-cited essays are grounded. You'll note I didn't mention a certain part of WP:COSTLY. There's a reason I didn't. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, Auckland edit

This redirect was added by an account who also added a Chinatown template to the Balmoral article, this was later reversed. Whilst Balmoral and Dominion Road especially has a large Chinese presence the area is still overwhelmingly European and I've never heard it known as Chinatown. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universe (Benee song) edit

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

April 21 edit

Priscilla Sebastian edit

No mention of "Priscilla" or "Sebastian" at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poop On Your Neighbor edit

Well uh, even with replacement words I wouldn't consider "screw" to be equivalent to "poop on", and it's not like there's a pooping variation at play discussed at the target article, either... Utopes (talk / cont) 22:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokok edit

No mention of Pokok at the title, making this a confusing target. What I've found is that this is a word that can be found in various languages, which this usecase seems to be one as well. There is [20] on hu.wiki, [21] on ms.wiki, [22] on en.wikt, but even with just hu and ms wikis, without any mention of a translation it's unclear to readers which definition has a "higher priority" for an WP:RLANG. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. It seems to be the term for tree for both Indonesia and Malaysia. There are a lot of partial title matches for trees or places that has the term "Pokok" in their name in en.wiki. --Lenticel (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interaction edit

A "point of interaction component" is not discussed at the target article. Existed as an uncited couple-sentence stub for 14 years before being redirected into the page it was involved with, but is not actually a topic we cover on Wikipedia at this time. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plumbus edit

Undiscussed thing(?) from Rick and Morty not discussed at the target page. A 2016 AfD established that this thing(?) is not inherently notable, but I guess not even notable for inclusion at the target page. Not a useful redirect as an undiscussed concept, especially when it has the potential to steal searchers from OTHER articles (in this case, plumbous for lead), only to be taken to A: An article they didn't want to go to, and B: An article they're not sure why it exists, as "plumbus" never gets discussed so this doesn't even help the pure "plumbus" searchers either. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is WP:CRUFT. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ploopy edit

No mention of this term at the target article. I fear the other location this redirect has pointed at isn't much better either. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of the Isles edit

A location from The Riftwar Cycle fictional universe, but not mentioned in article. Should redirect to Kingdom of the Isles, but this redirect has the history of Riftwar. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Kingdom of the Isles. A hatnote should be sufficient to send readers to other articles about topics with similar names, perhaps a disambiguation page. P Aculeius (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkblood edit

No substantial mention of "Pinkblood" anywhere on Wikipedia; is only stated once in a citation on a different article. If this is a possibly notable group, seems to be worthwhile to keep as a red link to encourage article creation. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry the Platypus Plumber? edit

No mention of this singular joke-line from the show at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, and look through the creator's other redirects, they're also mostly oddly specific phineas and ferb lines cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peodeiktophilia edit

Originally created as a redirect to exhibitionism before being retargeted to anasyrma, this term is mentioned at neither of the articles in question and is not something that we have good coverage on at the moment, with the only mention of this word anywhere on Wikipedia being at the List of paraphilias. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect back to exhibitionism, since this term apparently refers to sexual arousal or gratification arising from exposing one's genitals (some definitions seem to specify male genitals), while anasyrma seems to be primarily a jesting or ritual exposure of genitalia (frequently women's) in a religious context or to ward off evil. As with all nominations dealing with "the term is not mentioned in the target article", it would be a good idea to find somewhere to mention and define it within the article, thereby making renomination less likely. P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Peo" (from wikt:πέος) refers to male genitals in Greek so those definitions are more etymologically correct. In any case, exhibitionism is obviously a more appropriate target due to the "-philia" suffix. Nickps (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penitent tangent edit

No mention of "penitent" or "tangent" at the target article. This might just be a character based on the edit summary(?) but with zero context at the target article there's no reason for people to think such, as readers are left with no context to this search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This character only appears briefly in a Halo 2 cutscene with the Gravemind and is never seen again. Not worth a mention on Wikipedia. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pearland NGC edit

No mention of "NGC" at the target page; this title has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: NGC means "Ninth Grade Center". The article and previous revisions don't mention it, though Pearland Independent School District does. Perhaps the redirect should be retargeted to "Pearland Independent School District"? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pawanism edit

No mention of "Pawanism" at the target page. 7 years ago, it was said that "Pawanism isn't notable on its own, but should be discussed on Pawan Kalyan" in an edit summary. However, it is not. There are multiple people named Pawan on Wikipedia; "Pawanism" is too vague in its current state. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parade (Jake Miller song) edit

No mention of this song at the target page, nor is there one at the more expectedly Jake Miller discography listing. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panther Memorial Stadium, McBee edit

No longer mentioned at the target after a 2012 merge/redirect AfD closure. A high school's stadium does not need to be a redirect to the school if the stadium has no discussion at the target page, although the history may need to be dealt with. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P-hunting edit

The article in question does not discuss the "hunting" aspect. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:→ edit

Ambiguous with Help:Edit summaries § Section editing. In fact, since "→" is not on most keyboards, copying it from an edit summary should be one of the most likely ways it is being searched. Also, WP:← redirects to H:AES which causes the two redirects to be inconsistent with each other. I suggest we dabify. Nickps (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though I've recommended disambiguate I'd be happy to see this just redirect to AES as that is probably more likely given people see that in the history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed target Help pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Help:Edit summaries#Section editing. I cannot seriously imagine somebody typing this and expecting to get information about redirects (the redirect arrow is not a character at all, it's this image). Nobody is looking for AES with this either, because AES uses the other direction. The only case that makes any sense to me is if someone sees a section edit and copies the arrow from the edit summary into the search box, in which case we should take them to the help page on section editing. --NYKevin 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I never said to add AES to the dab.I just noticed that wasn't directed at me. Yeah, retargeting to AES is certainly wrong. I strongly oppose such a close. 14:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) WP:← is its own can of worms due to {{od2}} but that's for another RfD (I've opened that RfD now)12:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC). The right arrow is absolutely used for redirects though. Examples include Special:DoubleRedirects, Special:ListRedirects and right here in RfD. What if someone copies it from there instead of an edit summary? Nickps (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, yet another use of the right arrow is for moving pages in WP:RM. So that's another thing we should disambiguate. Nickps (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when I said WP:← redirects to H:AES which causes the two redirects to be inconsistent with each other I only meant that one refers to its arrow's usage in edit summaries and the other does not. I never wanted them to have the same target and I strongly oppose retargeting WP:→ to Help:Automatic edit summaries Nickps (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance edit

Non-existing now at List of Resident Evil characters since they are not characters but a minor company. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 10:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Tactics and Rescue Service edit

Non-existing now at List of Resident Evil characters since they are not characters but a minor company. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 10:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nizzotch edit

No edit summary or rcats, confusing why this exists and had to look for myself. Apparently a nickname, although not mentioned at target and not visibly useful. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a corruption of Persson's usual alias of "Notch". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is the name of Persson's (I believe now unused) Youtube channel. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Har har edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Raja Mahendra edit

This redirect is to a section of the article that no longer exists. The section was added by a now-blocked sockpuppeteer, and the redirect was also provided by the sockpuppeteer. The section no longer exists, so the redirect is useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spray paint edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep. Discussion should be held via WP:RM.

First Battle of Siversk edit

Delete. Battle of Siversk was merged on the basis that there was no substantial event that would be identified by the article title (see Talk:Battle of Siversk#Merge proposal). First Battle of Siversk was created on the premise that there soon would be a "second battle". However, if there were to be a battle for this town, either now or in the future, it would not be known as either the "first" or the "second" battles. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creek Massacre edit

Terrible redirect, there were numerous Foo Creek massacres, such as Indian Creek massacre, Myall Creek massacre, Waterloo Creek massacre, and on and on. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mixed feelings, a Google search suggests that the Sand Creek massacre is by far the most common topic for the phrase, though it is never referred to without the "Sand. Perhaps Dabify? Rusalkii (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would only make sense to have a primary redirect or a dab page if it (or any of the others) were referred to by simply "Creek massacre". I don't believe there is evidence for that. We shouldn't have dab pages for phrases that are only partial title matches, as WP:PTMs should not be included on disambiguation pages. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Games edit

The Summer Olympics are not known simply as "Games". See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3#2022 Games. Mia Mahey (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'll note, they are in many occasions, such as [23] [24] [25], none of which use the "summer" qualifier but do refer to the 2024 as Games. These aren't the Winter Olympics. There's the colloquial Olympics, and the Winter Olympics. The word "summer" is often dropped on most occasions when discussing the Olympics that take place in the summer, so I wouldn't consider the winter games to be on the same level. 2008 Games and 1992 Games are current redirects to their respective Olympics and have existed since 2007 and 2006, respectively. This is in conjunction with similar titles such as 2006 Winter Games and/or 2014 Winter Games as expected. These were created through AfC so I don't have a strong attachment, but if you have any alternate titles that have a higher significant usage of "2020 Games" that could be useful to note. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguate, or retarget to 2020 in slop, since it ignores the winter olympics and those other things people refer to almost exclusively as "games"
would suggest "2020 summer games", but that also seems to refer mostly to games released in the summer of 2020 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 20 edit

Royal tart edit

Should delete as to WP:FANCRUFT. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a redirect, this is valid. The concern of FANCRUFT may be taken up at the target article. Jay 💬 18:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finite dimensional Hilbert spaces edit

The current target may be too technical for the search term. Alternatives could be Hilbert space or Euclidean space (or Euclidean space#Technical definition). Also note that the singular Finite dimensional Hilbert space, or the more correct hyphenations Finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces/Finite-dimensional Hilbert space do not currently exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pluri- edit

Pluri indeed means plural, but the current target is about grammatical person, and this prefix is used in other contexts (eg. plurinational, plurisexual, etc.) and it's not mentioned in the target page either. It could be dabified in line with multi. --MikutoH talk! 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cocklass edit

Unlikely misspelling, and web search only shows a bunch of unrelated results. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. might as well mark it up for speedy delete since it's such an implausible error Okmrman (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom (it's pronounced in such a way that the k wouldn't make sense), and don't retarget it to futanari either, they're completely different things cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six word story edit

Sure it's the first six-word story but I don't think that when people refer to six word stories, they specifically refer to this one. Maybe retarget to flash fiction or Six-Word Memoirs. Okmrman (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jake the Jailbird edit

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mr. Monopoly#History, which mentions the name-- In the book, all of the characters that appear on the Monopoly board or within the decks of cards received a name. Uncle Pennybags' full name was given as Milburn Pennybags, the character "In Jail" is named "Jake, the Jailbird", and the police officer on Go to Jail is named "Officer Mallory". 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Puducherry edit

no such role exists or has existed -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animals (2023 film) edit

Should be retargeted to Animal (disambiguation)#Films, like Animal (film) currently, or be deleted. Per the above DAB there are two 2023 films called "Animal", so targeting one specifically is inappropriate. Additionally, neither (including the Indian film) seems to actually be called "Animals". Toadspike (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Animal (disambiguation)#Films - this seems plausible enough a typo that a redirect to the dab doesn't seem too out there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing, while plural and singular are often interchangeable "Animals" doesn't appear in either of the 2023 films named "Animal". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

108.21.221.8 (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no 2023 film entitled "Animals". Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multistorey edit

pretty sure multistorey can refer to any building with multiple floors and not just car parks Okmrman (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Building for consistency with Multi-story. Not mentioned at target, but I can't imagine there's a more reasonable target. --NYKevin 04:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welp, I was wrong. Storey, as suggested by Nyttend, is obviously a better target. --NYKevin 22:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to storey which explains the concept better than building. Multi-story can be retargeted there too. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unuk edit

Also Unuk River. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. Rivers are forever. --Викидим (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is there to even discuss? :) the only question I have in these cases is whether to execute the disambiguation by editing the redirect and replacing the formatting inline, or by first doing a move of the redirect to Unuk (surname) in order to seed the link for possible expansion later - the latter seems like a good idea usually (WP:BUILDTHEWEB). --Joy (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W2000 edit

The first result I get when google searching is Walther WA 2000. There is also Hercules W-2000. Okmrman (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Hercules W-2000 as the most likely target, with a seealso link at top to Walther WA 2000. "W2000" to refer to the OS isn't really a thing to my knowledge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flexes edit

Someone that performs a Flex, or perhaps are flexing (and/or doing the flexing (dance) all the while), can be said to be someone who "flexes". Flexion does not seem to be the only use for this term. Wiktionary or disambiguation might also be suitable here? Utopes (talk / cont) 23:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per ip Okmrman (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My, my, this here Anakin guy edit

No mention of this lyric at the target page. Anakin never mentioned, people searching for this lyric instead of the title of the song are left without the context that was sought. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "The Saga Begins" is Weird Al Yankovich's parody of "American Pie", with this lyric being the first bar of the chorus. It's a plausible search term given the name of the song never appears in the lyrics at all, to my knowledge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 03:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as {{R without mention}} / {{R from search term}}, being the first line of the chorus -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Jéské Couriano. Plausible search term. DrowssapSMM 13:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, tagging a redirect with {{R without mention}} places the redirect in a maintenance category, Category:Redirects to an article without mention, that is cleared by adding a mention to the target article, deleting the redirects via WP:CSD, or nominating the redirects for WP:RFD ... meaning tagging the redirect as so then "keeping" the redirect is akin to kicking the can down the road, which is unhelpful since we are literally having the discussion about the redirect right now. Steel1943 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ordinarily I would agree with you, but this is an instance where people are more likely, if they didn't know the exact name of the song, to look up the lyric specifically due to thinking it's the title. As I mentioned, "The Saga Begins" never appears in the song as a lyric, while the redirect is the first line sung in the song's chorus. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So should every song have a redirect from the first line of the chorus if they don't know it? What if they don't know the first line, but they do know the second? What reliable sources allow us to verify that a song contains it's name in the chorus or not? Wikipedia is not the place to figure out names of songs from lyrics. Nobody uses Wikipedia for this purpose, because it doesn't work. How would people find this, from My my this here Anakin guy, or My my, this here Anakin guy, or My, My This Here Anakin Guy? It's a wholly unreliable metric. It would never be linked on any page (zero reason to wikilink a lyric). It would never appear on any page (as a lyric, it wouldn't appear anywhere else, and also not on the page unless we have encyclopedic content about the lyric). If you don't know the name of the song, you google search "My my this here anakin guy" and the very first result is The Saga Begins. This is not For the Longest Time where people might think that's the actual name of the song. Nobody actually thinks the song is actually called "My My This Here Anakin Guy" by Weird Al. This is would they'd type into their search engine, not Wikipedia. Typing this in a lyric into Wikipedia, under the pretense that it's not the name of the song, would be done so in order to find information directly pertinent to the lyric, and not to the song that they could've searched for in far less words. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This assumes that people aren't using Wikipedia as a search engine themselves. It can be assumed if they're looking up one of the more prominent lyrics for a song and that lyric isn't part of the song's title (which, usually, the song title is the most prominent lyric) then it's because they've heard the song but aren't aware the lyric they're looking up isn't the song title. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is would they'd type into their search engine, not Wikipedia" – people do use Wikipedia as a search engine. Special:Search is Wikipedia's second most viewed page (after the main page), with 2.5 million views per day. Kk.urban (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most songs have lots of lines, so each one provides near-unlimited possibilities to create redirects. It is not up to us to judge which ones are memorable, unless this is stated in the text of article itself, with sources. --Викидим (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many people may search for a song even if they don't know its title. In this case, the title isn't mentioned in the lyrics, so that's more plausible. The first line of the chorus is a very likely way to search for it. I believe that this can be useful even if the number of pageviews is low, because when people type it in the search bar, The Saga Begins will appear and they will likely click on that. Kk.urban (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The One Piece is real! edit

Retarget either to Dark Fantasy (song)#Legacy or Patrick Fabian#Personal life as those sections both mention the subject, but the article it is redirecting to does not. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to state that the redirect is in fact a quote by the fictional character Whitebeard, which are his final words. This quote confirms that the One Piece (the treasure that the main character, Monkey D. Luffy, is looking for, and the namesake of the entire manga) exists. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of One Piece characters#Edward Newgate and tag as R from Quote (perhaps tag it as an Avoided Double Redirect to Whitebeard, or don't, given Whitebeard is Newgate), as it is the primary topic-- both suggested targets by the IP editor discuss the phrase in the context of the same meme, which is in reference to the scene Jalapeño mentioned, and while doing so use the Whitebeard redirect to link there. The current entry on Edward Newgate also alludes to this phrase-- ...just before he proclaimed that the One Piece is real and that it indeed exists.
If it's felt to be necessary, hatnoting to Dark Fantasy#Legacy (This is about the character whose last words were, "The One Piece is real!" For the internet meme that uses this quote, information may be found at Dark Fantasy#Legacy or something along those lines) may be an option, although I can't make the same recommendation for Patrick Fabian-- someone looking for information on the meme itself probably wouldn't be looking for a random celebrity who was asked to read off multiple internet memes, only one of which was the One Piece meme. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garv Sangwan edit

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was originally an article with two inline citations. jlwoodwa, "not mentioned" isn't a criteria except when the redirect is "novel or very obscure synonym" per WP:RFD#DELETE. Since there's more than just the redirect in the page history, I wonder whether we should be considering whether the subject is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports), rather than just whether we want it to be redirected to this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further opinion on the pre-redirect page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amc interview with the vampire edit

Redirects are not the same thing as search engines, this version seems unlikely to be directly linked. Mason (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a theoretically plausible search term, but I do concede that it doesn't seem to get much (any?) use. I mostly object to the implication behind nominator's assertion that "redirects are not the same thing as search engines", which implies that the vast majority of useful redirects need to be deleted. Not so. Redirects merely need to be useful to be kept, per WP:CHEAP. If WP:PANDORA has a use, and usually I say it doesn't, I'd say that this is a good case for it-- nominating redirects simply because they are things that people might type into a search box is not how we do things here, nor how we should do things here. Redirects based on things that honestly and plausibly might be typed into a search box is practically the definition of a good redirect. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because <channel name> <show name> is not an unusual or unreasonable title. This is the equivalent of specifying "Disney's Cinderella", when you want to make sure people know that you're talking about the famous film and not the generic fairy tale. In this case, it means "the version of the Interview with a Vampire franchise that was published by AMC (and not the book or the other ones)", and there's nothing wrong with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This topic would not be specified this way on Wikipedia. We are not a search engine that accepts dubious variations on any topic as redirects. The carelessness through lack of any formatting, plus the creator being partially blocked as a result of their redirect creations, leads me to believe that this redirect is wholly unnecessary. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per #8 because "Amc interview with the vampire" verbatim is not found in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 13:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The capitalization is poor but it seems like a plausible search term.★Trekker (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajnibala edit

The redirect is for non-notable character not listed in the target article. The Google search returns many more relevant results that can be notable. Delete to avoid confusion. Alternatively, within Wikipedia, a plausible possible redirect is Saglikade Bombabomb where Rajnibala is a character. Викидим (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the pre-redirect page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dwayne edit

This was speedy deleted as R3 claiming No mention of a Tim Dwayne in target article. Since the redirect was created in 2010 R3 doesn't apply, so I've undeleted and am sending to RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for being an extremely unlikely typo/misnomer. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tape worm edit

Retarget to Eucestoda, as tapeworm redirects there. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]