Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfD)
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 0 0
TfD 0 0 8 0 8
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
RfD 0 0 13 0 13
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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 the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?

[edit]


Shortcuts

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

[edit]
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (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. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

[edit]
Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

[edit]
Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(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.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
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]
Shortcuts

November 1

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Redirects

[edit]

Subpage of a defunct wikiproject and redundant. Also, nothing links here. Most people would probably know that redirect etiquette applies to all of wikipedia TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles on Wikipedia

[edit]

Just checking to see if consensus on GA WP:XNRs have changed. This one was created more recently. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Retarget

[edit]

Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:Redirect? I guess we gotta retarget the retarget. That being said, there is some basis for keeping if WP:RfD explains retargeting better than the former. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi the butcher

[edit]

Although this "nickname" has been thrown around on social media, I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P Diddler

[edit]

...really? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Koopa

[edit]

not particularly notable side character cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga

[edit]

no such list present cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style:

[edit]

If this were the actual namespace, I'm pretty sure that it would be empty. Pretty sure most would just use WP:MOS. Even typing MOS: without anything in front of it would still get you to where you want to be. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario &Luigi: SuperStar Saga

[edit]

implausible missing space? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belly Blech

[edit]

it's belly blech worm!! also not mentioned in the article, or really that important cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panjshiri dialect

[edit]

Couldn't find any WP:RS that these are synonyms. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Manual of Style

[edit]

It's categorized as a redirect from misspelling, but the space and colon are pretty far off. Maybe if people wanted to see Wikipedia's MoS, it could be useful. Kind of plausible but also unnatural redirect. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's a plausible redirect if i've ever seen one. from a look at the rcat functional index, i have no idea which other rcats would fit here. i guess remove r from misspelling as not a misspelling and weak remove r to project page as apparently that one isn't meant to be used in mainspace cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Original Research

[edit]

WP:XNR but it's quite literally the first thing that pops up when you search the phase on google. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP;OR

[edit]

Somebody forgot to hit their shift key. Do simple typos justify WP:XNRs? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ridiculous and unatural. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP:CRIME

[edit]

Not a proper namespace or psudonamespace TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fix the target to #people accused of crime because a redirect to a page followed by a typo of an abbreviation used by another redirect gives my eyes the big ouchies. and then delete per nom i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Depression in the Middle East

[edit]

Target section doesn't exist, and there doesn't seem adequate information in the target article to refine this redirect in a way that guarantees readers will find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Yoshi

[edit]

Just because pink is mentioned in passing as one of the three colors of Yoshi amiibo that were released in the game, doesn't mean that this is a useful redirect. Anyone wanting actual information about Pink Yoshi will be disappointed. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. woolly world isn't even the first or only game with a pink yoshi. a hidden figure forbid mario kart 8 not have something cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hez

[edit]

Nobody calls it that. This redirect is extremely implausible. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. yeah, results gave me assorted brands, assorted bands, and men cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates

[edit]

The process is not mentioned in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i mean... wp:fanom is right there... will still vote to weak delete as "not on the plausible side of xnrs" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination featured article

[edit]

The article does not mention nominations, and the order of the words makes this a very unlikely search term. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. the wording could just as easily imply that it's about nominating featured articles for... something (idk, dyk?), or a featured article on nominations. it's confusing cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diddler and The Diddler

[edit]

The first redirect was created by a new user in 2015. Unsurprisingly, the topic isn't covered in cheating. The second term is an informal term for Sean Combs. Hence, I'm asking to delete them. Tavantius (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, classic {{r from avoided double redirect}}. Diddler => cheater => cheating. Cremastra (u — c) 00:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement, no need for a separate DAB page (struck). I was thinking it was a little silly when I wrote it, but didn't check further after reading WP:RTODAB (confirmation bias strikes again). Going back again I see you're right and WP:DABNAME covers this under point five. ― Synpath 23:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
intriguingly, the redirect was created by @FunkMonk, a veteran user with over 100 thousand edits. Tavantius (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination of The Diddler had the incorrect target. I have fixed it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Shedding and Cold Rocks

[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, possible WP:NEO, WP:RSURPRISE applies. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late 00s recession

[edit]

Ambigous with Panic of 1907 and possibly Panic of 1901 (depending on one's definition of "late"), given the redirect does not make it clear which century it refers. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moneygeddon

[edit]

Not mentioned in target article (WP:RSURPRISE), making it WP:OR/WP:NEO otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eirik Suhrke

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Currently links to composer Eirik Suhrke's name lead to the article for the game Ridiculous Fishing. This has created confusion on some talk pages as he is credited with working on multiple games and his mention on the Ridiculous Fishing article is confined to one sentence saying he was the composer for the game. Given the lack of coverage on the man himself and the extensive list of notable works he's been involved with it seems it would be best to delete the redirect, given it points to an article that contains just as much info on him as that of any other game he's worked on. XeCyranium (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listed the previous RfD from 2017 and notified of the discussion at the target and creator's pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snake eyes

[edit]

This was, for a long time, an article about rolling two ones. Redirected to Craps#Rolling in 2020, as it was deemed not notable enough for a standalone article. Later retargeted to the dabpage. I'd argue this is a good situation for WP:DIFFCAPS - the craps meaning is the primary topic, and nothing at Snake Eyes is referred to as "snake eyes". 162 etc. (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the disambiguation page to Snake eyes. There are two notable things possibly called "Snake eyes", at that capitalization. The dice roll, and the actual eyes of an actual snake. I suppose the latter term could also be used to describe reptilian eyes in other contexts (aliens, or the like). The content on the dice roll should be restored and merged somewhere appropriate for that content. BD2412 T 16:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move the disambiguation page The purpose is to bring people to the page they are looking for. I think the DAB page lists the media and the "rolling of the dice" definition. There have been two major movies with the same name over the past few decades that might bring people to where they want to go. If people search "snake eyes", it should bring them to the DAB page instead of the "Craps (rolling)" section that does not have a DAB link. Marty2Hotty (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marzipan joyjoys

[edit]

No longer mentioned in the article, despite a page merge. Xeroctic (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Menthol Moose

[edit]

No longer mentioned in the article. Xeroctic (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell Harr

[edit]

Haskell Harr is a Percussive Arts Society Hall of Fame member, but that is as far as his connection goes. He is currently not listed on the page. I would prefer this to be a redlink to encourage the creation of a proper article. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. I created that redirect but I have no recollection why. Typically when I create one, it's because I was searching for a term and never found it, so I create a redirect to a related term in case someone else might also look for it. I have no objection to deleting this one. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azaroth

[edit]

This is an ambiguous misspelling (and see @VeryRarelyStable:'s edit at [6]). It may be better to delete than to guess which misspelling the user wanted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Smith (rapper)

[edit]

Not listed on target page Blethering Scot 07:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benji Floros

[edit]

Not listed on target page. Blethering Scot 07:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Island (Skylanders)

[edit]

This is the name of the first chapter of Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure, but it isn't mentioned in either the target article or that game's article. The redirect began life in 2022 as a page about the chapter (see the most developed version before it was permanently redirected here), and then Praxidicae (who might want to weigh in in this discussion) redirected it seventeen hours later for the subject being WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm not sure if we should lead people into thinking we have substantial info about this chapter when we don't have much info if any at all, so I'm bringing it here to discuss. My preference is deletion, but I'm open to being swayed otherwise. Regards, SONIC678 07:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

[edit]

Counter-Strike player models

[edit]

Page says nothing about player models (also the redirect already has counter strike in it so it's redundant) TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Gangster

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; no longer associated with the record label. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpydaT.E.K

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; no longer associated with the record label. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GKR (DJ)

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; no longer associated with the record label. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Drue

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; no longer associated with the record label. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Standard articles

[edit]

The standards for good articles have increased over the years after 2005 and at this point, good articles probably would be considered way above "standard". TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPSECONDARY

[edit]

Don't think minor errors in discussions justify creating WP:XNRs TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesonet

[edit]

Delete to encourage creation of the article. High trafic redirect with the only fact present being the year of establishment. Respublik (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Someone can just expand the page into a full article, that's allowed, and that's been done on thousands of articles. You could do that now if you feel strongly about the situation, and you would be congratulated for it. Why remove the next best option which is a redirect to the founder? "High traffic redirect" suggests the page is doing something useful, redirecting to the founder of the organisation until a page on the organisation exists. I don't see why that's a reason to delete the page. "Only fact present being the year of establishment" I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where on the page said the year of establishment? A redirect of a company name to a founder could be categorised with a year of establishment, but that's just to aid navigation in categories. This one had no categories. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even IPs, so people with no Wikipedia account, can turn a redirect into a full article. On 20 September I created 2023 Taça da Liga final, redirecting to 2022–23 Taça da Liga#Final. Five days later an IP turned it into an 11K article. [7] How is this situation stopping people from making a page, which nobody in the history of the world has wanted to do yet? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IP just removed the discussion link in order to write a description of the company in promotional language. If they can do it now, what's stopping a legitimate user or IP from doing so? Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WH:HG

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted

PKS 0451-28

[edit]

This is a part of the target list, but it is one of 8000 and isn't mentioned as one of the notable ones there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nortwest Airways

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete not a plausable redirect, it only has 12 Google hits after removing duplicate results and 2 of those results are definitely from Wikipedia and some of the others also could be. There is no reason to have a redirect from such an obscure typo per WP:COSTLY and although kept in 2012 there is more of a consensus in 2024 that implausible redirects should be deleted like Georgia (U.S. state and Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improbable misspelling. Kablammo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kablammo (talk • contribs) 09:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per A7V2 and Thryduulf. This is a different sort of redirect than a trailing period or a missing character from the Wikipedia-specific disambiguator. I don't advocate for creating redirects for "every misspelling" but also don't think, in general, they should be deleted (particularly if there's already been a discussion and there's nothing new that makes it costly). Skynxnex (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be R3 eligible if it were new. Highly implausible error, especially given that it uses "Airways" instead of "Airlines", a historical name of the company discontinued almost a century ago. There are over a thousand pages starting with "Northwest" (I stopped counting); should we make this redirect for all of them? Those complaining about the time/effort spent on discussion could remedy that by simply not contesting these sorts of bad redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What other redirects do, don't or could exist is completely irrelevant. The previous discussion determined that this redirect is plausible and useful, what has changed since then? Your final sentence presupposes that this is a bad redirect, which consensus determined it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No such determination was made. In fact, no one argued for its usefulness, only enough of the usual crowd making hand-waving gestures about it being harmless, which is not a valid keep argument. In fact, evidence has been presented here about how implausible it is, while you're merely whining about this wasting time...time which you could be saving by not bothering to contest this, especially since you seem to have no actual substantive argument for keeping, only that you dislike it being nominated again. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not convinced by the arguments that this is an implausible misspelling. To the anon's point, the company was founded as "Northwest Airways" and only later used "Airlines." - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and as I mentioned, that change happened almost a century ago, making this already implausible misspelling (see evidence presented in nomination) even more implausible. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct title of the former name Northwest Airways already exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

buccal organ(s)

[edit]

closed before with consensus that we're not biologists. trying again with the same rationale (that being that mouths have other organs, like teeth and tongues), so i hope y'all studied your chompy boys. still not sure if retargeting to mouth would be the best idea though cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think mouth is the best option for buccal organ – it's the buccal organ, it just contains some other lesser ones. The mouth is, you could say, the mother of all buccal organs. Cremastra (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't be retargeting this to "mouth". No one is typing "buccal organ" into wikipedia and expecting to find "mouth", since we just have the word "mouth" for that. The reason that "buccal organ" exists is to describe different kinds of mouth-like things. Like the thing annelida have. It doesn't describe teeth and tongues. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    by definition, it does. teeth, being bones, are a little iffy (some could say i was... wrong!?), but tongues, as noted in the article, are explicitly organs that are in the mouth (and thus, buccal), and so are lips now that i think about it again. this article i found within 20 minutes of looking around refers to "buccal organs" as just organs in the mouth of humans, and this article does the same for birds (and with less subtlety). if there are species of birds and humans that have suckers, i probably missed them, in which case my bad cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 01:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and of course, the exact moment i decide to click reply, i remember that there's a list of organs of the human body here, and it happens to list teeth as organs that are in the mouth. what are the chances~? yes, i know other species also have mouths that may not have tongues, lips, or teeth, i'm just using humans as an example cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 01:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target Mouth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, then, let's just delete it. Any target will be imperfect or at least controversial, so I think deletion is unfortunately the best option here. Cremastra (u — c) 01:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump

[edit]

Umm how did this get here TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it looks like someone created a redirect in the mainspace just to fix some error in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age and health concerns of Joe Biden. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strogino CS Portal

[edit]

No mention of the redirect in article. Doing a bit of research, it appears to be a pirating site with nothing closely related to the CS series. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Building a sentry

[edit]

In a game where nearly every quote is iconic, what is special about this quote specifically? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

line iconic to the engineer, but i'd say delete for now until he gets his own article. not that i have much faith in him getting his right now, since heavy and medic are hotter more iconic cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 21:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Day belt

[edit]

yes, this is a halloween-themed discussion, have you seen a belt up close? unmentioned, and no definition on wiktionary. results gave me belts with the word "day" written on them for one reason or another, belts (not necessarily of the kind you put on your pants) seemingly made by companies or as part of models that contain the word "day", belts (again, not necessarily for pants) meant to be worn during the day or daily for whatever reason, belts intended to be gifted during specific days, and... supplements. am i missing something? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 21:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hat Simulator

[edit]

Possible WP:FANCRUFT TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This is a meme-y way to refer to the game, that isn't limited to the fanbase-- Valve themselves sometimes refer to the game as a "war-themed hat simulator" in the ad copy for updates, with the first example I can find being the Mac Update of June 2010. Given I can't think of any other game or application that could be referred to this way, I'd say we keep. That said, my 'keep' would be a lot stronger if a mention were added to the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Aquarium

[edit]

It doesn't seem that "The Human Aquarium" is more likely to refer to Hadji Ali than to Mac Norton, whose article mentions the nickname in the lead, while Ali's only mentions the name six paragraphs down. Paul_012 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2029 in spaceflight

[edit]

No relevant information on 2029 in spaceflight at the target. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 ICC Women's T20 World Cup

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, anybody searching for this term will unexpectedly find nothing of relevance. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2031 Africa Cup of Nations

[edit]

Absolutely no relevant information at the target, the redirect is misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2033 SEA Games

[edit]

The only relevant information at the target is the host country, the host city hasn't even been determined yet. Anybody searching for this term will not be finding information that they would be expecting. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Telugu films of future years

[edit]

Misleading redirects, no list of films for these years at the target. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRAS 13349+1428

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target page and unable to find anything on Google. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: See above for an explanation why this redirect exists. Do you still think it should be deleted? Renerpho (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think waiting for inputs from a couple of more editors will not hurt. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: I am asking because this discussion is now eight days old -- one day over the usual deadline. We could close it, rather than waiting for someone to relist it, if all the arguments have been heard. I take that to mean you still think there's more to discuss? Renerpho (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This decision should not be left to a person with my level of astronomy knowledge. Like I said, waiting a week or two more will not hurt since "no consensus" is equivalent to "keep". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this galaxy we created out of human error. It was a redlink from 2015 until last month. Now that Renerpho has removed it from the template, we should not retain this erroneous galaxy. If ST11 (who added it to the template in the first place) says this is a genuine galaxy, he may add it back to the template, but it will remain a redlink until we have some info on it, or if it is an alternate name, it may be recreated. Jay 💬 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay, I'd agree with you completely if this human error had been a recent one. But at 10 years old, I think the chance for it to have "transcended Wikipedia" is too high (non-zero). There's no harm in keeping it. Renerpho (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is 1 month old, hence recently created. What was 10 years old, was page content that existed as a redlink, and we fix page content all the time. Jay 💬 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

[edit]

Not mentioned at target page/ -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has incoming links. Readers are better served by blue links redirecting them to the relevant party (even without an explicit mention) than red links leaving them none the wiser. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting wedge

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Over two years later, let's try this again: delete per WP:RSURPRISE as unmentioned and per WP:REDLINK per my comments in the previous discussion's nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cackala

[edit]

@Hyphenation Expert: nominated this for R3 because WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". I have declined this. The term is indeed attested on the internet (c.f. e.g. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/the-biden-we-were-told-about-never-existed/ and https://moonbattery.com/biden-harris-regime-authorizes-military-to-kill-us/ ), which I think makes it a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to type in the search bar, even if they're not expecting a full article on this word. Duckmather (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is contentious information about a living person; if it is not notable enough to be described on Wikipedia with an inline citation to a reliable source, the redirect is WP:G10. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly childish nickname that I doubt very much will ever really be a search term. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". The National Review article doesn't say "Cackala"; it's a comment in the comment section (WP:NATIONALREVIEW is "no consensus" reliable anyway). Moonbattery is a WordPress blog. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep Very widely used to the extent it's plausible someone will see it out of context and look for information on who it refers to. "Childish" nicknames are definitely not G10 material. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G10. Ibadibam (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thryduulf, your declining of the speedy deletion nom and then also !voting here is an improper WP:INVOLVED action. Please revert one of them. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this was inappropriate and neither action was in my capacity as an admin. Anybody can contest a speedy deletion nomination (other than the creator, in some circumstances) and it was already being discussed here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    100% not WP:INVOLVED. All speedy deletion requests (other than office actions and copyright violations) are negated if any user objects, and as there is already a non-unanimous deletion discussion underway (this discussion), the article is not eligible for G10 and any admin acting responsibly should have declined the request. The accountability policy deals specifically with admin actions, not all things an admin might do; some take the view that declining a speedy deletion request is an admin action regardless of the fact that any user can decline, but !voting in a straw poll is definitely not an admin action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I don't imagine Kamala Harris would be particularly worried about a redirect to the Wikipedia article on her, and so BLP worries aren't major. I'm amazed that WP:RNEUTRAL is being used as a rationale for deletion (and even speedy deletion!) when it says nothing other than "treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect" with only an implication of applying slightly more caution. The point is – it's a plausible search term as it's a nickname so divorced from Harris' actual name that readers would be liable to not immediately understand to whom it refers, and seek this site for an explanation. J947 ‡ edits 04:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "it says nothing other than 'treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect'"
    In fact, it says redirects that are not established terms – used in multiple mainstream reliable sources – may be nominated for deletion. And even: G10 and G3 may apply. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficiently in-use in the wild that someone may legitimately be confused by it and want to know who is being referred to. Redirects are generally non-user facing, so this should not introduce any WP:BLP issues. I might have suggested it be added to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, except to my astonishment he actually hasn't used it personally that I can tell, it's just in wide wide WIDESPREAD use by his fans. MAGAs are weird. Fieari (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : A nonsensical derogatory name used a few times by Magas on social media and once by a partisan magazine should not be sufficient criterion for it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Nohorizonss (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is textbook WP:RCOM, without there being any prominent use of it as a reference to Harris. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf et al. Silly nickname, widely-used in social media (which makes it plausible enough for keeping). Reasons for deletion seem a bit over the top IMO, considering that this isn't a grave insult in any way. CycloneYoris talk! 19:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:RNEUTRAL's stated exception: not established terms [that] are unlikely to be useful may be deleted, in this case under reason for deletion #3: The redirect is offensive or abusive. A non-neutral term is established if it is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. This particular term is not, apparently appearing in zero mainstream reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being used in multiple-mainstream reliable sources is just an example of how a term might be established. The widespread use on social media seen here is another example. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our gauge for "widespread use on social media" normally is the published opinion of reliable sources, not editors' assertions that it is so, nor editors' claims to have seen this or that on Twitter. Have we lowered this standard for BLPs when the subject is a political figure? Or does WP:BLP still say things like "never use [...] social network posts [...] as sources of material about a living person" and "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a huge difference between things that appear in articles, that is, are "user facing", and things meant to act as navigation aides. The former needs proper sourcing, the latter just needs to be helpful and not misleading. Redirects absolutely do not need to be held to the same standard as article text. Fieari (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-neutral terms widely used on social media and similar but not regularly reported in mainstream media are exactly the sort of things people will search for, either because they want to find neutral information about the subject and don't realise the term is non-neutral or not mainstream or because they don't know or don't remember who/what is being referred to. Wikipedia redirects help both these groups find the information they are looking for (which is after all the primary goal of Wikipedia). They don't need to be neutral (indeed per WP:RNEUTRAL explicitly so), they just need to be accurate and useful. All that needs verifying is "is this term used to refer to the subject of/information found at the target?" and social media is reliable for that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lego racers

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

Firstly

[edit]

Don't think a redirect relating to the adverb to a page that is specifically about the number is a good idea. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at First, Second (disambiguation) and Third.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ape Escape Racer

[edit]

An extremely novel misnomer of an unofficial translated name of a Japan-only game. Is orphaned, which makes its unnecessary existence even less meaningful. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamison Wesley Crowder

[edit]

I cannot find a source anywhere showing Wesley as his middle name. Red Director (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're Barack

[edit]

Not mentioned on the target page. We should not be surprising readers. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

used to be mentioned on Joever article. Got redirected, and no longer mentions it. I agree with deletion. Ca talk to me! 10:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Young FC

[edit]

not mentioned in target page -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuna FC

[edit]

not mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bright (Suikoden)

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

There is no information about these characters at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. The previous RfD closed as a trainwreck, hence renominating for deletion. Jay 💬 08:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Squeeze

[edit]

Either delete the redir or fix the content of the redir target article. The Short squeeze article currently has no mention of "gamma" or "gamma squeeze" whatsoever. N2e (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with "Gamma Squeeze" as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Cemetery

[edit]

This was an article about a cemetery. Someone thought it was non-notable, so they redirected it to the town it was in. However, then it was pointed out that there are (probably) several Byron Cemeteries. As is we are targeting this to a DAB page that does not mention cemeteries. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article and put to AfD to see if this topic is notable. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. about half an hour of looking around gave me the byron public cemetery... but also other cemeteries in places named byron, other cemeteries named byron, people who turned into corpses and were buried in one of said cemeteries, and people who kicked the bucket while named byron. none of the results seemed reliable for an article, and no single cemetery got more than 2 results (that weren't obituaries, that is). the closest a "byron cemetery" came to being notable was the byron cemetery and mausoleum in fairborn, ohio, but even then, that specific cemetery is not mentioned in the city's article, and i still didn't find anything reliable about it. all of this is to say that i don't think there would be enough to work with for a dab
less prejudice against afd than usual though, seeing as it hasn't been a redirect for as long as anthem had been in development cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Heavies

[edit]

Delete. This is a redirection of a meant-to-be-funny term "Heavies", created by an editor to redirect to his favourite playground. The term is by no means usual, or ever been used by anyone other than this editor who likes to link to this page on talk pages. I reccon this misuse of redicection pages. 47.67.225.78 (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure I understand the IP's argument? 'Heavies' is just... the plural form of 'Heavy' used as a noun, as in the SpaceX Super Heavy-- I could easily see multiple SpaceX Super Heavy rocket stages being referred to as "Super Heavies". If you follow the link given, you are, in fact, given a list of all Super Heavy rocket stages that have existed. Unless there's a better target for the redirect, we keep here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Super heavy as per the discussion above. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WP:BOLD :) 47.67.225.78 (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. We still have an active RfD; as per the text at the very top of this very WP:RFD page, it's very much not a good idea to change or rename the target of a redirect while it's under discussion due to it causing unnecessary problems for the closing admin and any other discussion participants. I reverted the good-faith edit here, but please don't do it again. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP List of Super Heavies is clearly different from the disambuigation page. If ya'll want, it can be renamed to List of Super Heavy Boosters.
Redirecting it to Super Heavy makes no sense. Looking at the Pageviews for each of the pages listed on the disambuigation page may help determine what people think of when thinking of "Super Heavy". Each number is the most recent # of pageviews listed.
Super Heavy (Proposed Redirect Target): 25, Unrated (disambuigation page)
Transuranium element: 141, C-class
SuperHeavy: 57, Stub-class
SuperHeavy (album): 12, Start-class
SpaceX Super Heavy (Current Redirect Target): 1127, B-class
Super-heavy tank: 364, Start-class
The current redirect target has more views than all the others. Combined. And then almost doubled.
EDIT If anything is going to be the redirect target for 'List of Super Heavies", its shoubl be Super Heavy booster.
Additionally, turning List of Super Heavies into a dedicated article (Alongside List of Starships) is being discussed here.
This is not without precedent: List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters exists, after all. Redacted II (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Guidelines suggest notifying the creator of the redirect if it is being discussed: "Please notify the good faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect"
This was not done, for either this or the previous proposed deletion. Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- "the current redirect target has more views than all the others." - this is self-serving. E.g., as Google looks up Wikipedia, it follows the redirect and spams the search results with the booster. It is irrelevant, though, as there exists other important "super heavy" meanings and the redirect has to respect that. I still think deleting would be best, but disambiation is second. Keeping is futile.
47.67.225.78 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Jesus

[edit]

I Googled "Stone Jesus" and most of the material that came up was about the resurrection of Christ. I just want to get some consensus about where this redirect should point. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Off the top of my head, and likely most plausible, searches for "Jesus" + "Stone" could be wanting to find: statues of Jesus made out of stone, the story of the stone being rolled away from his tomb, or his statement of "let he who has no sin cast the first stone". As a command-tense verb, it could refer to any one of the multiple times... (medium has an article saying there were 8 occasions) ...that people tried to kill him for what he said. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
stone to death as vague. could refer to jesuses made of stone, or any of the wacky histories he has with stones (at least 5 if my memory isn't failing me) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha myrcene

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Srishti

[edit]

Not mentioned at target (not now, and not when a hatnote was added). Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Srishti, there's a name (Srishti Kaur, Srishti Rana, Srishti Jain), Srishti (film), Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology, and the partial title matches of Srishti Madurai and Srishtidnyan. Looking at the pageviews, I'm unsure whether the name is the primary topic, or if there's no primary topic; I think it might depend on whether the other uses are all derived from the name. It would also help if I had any idea why it was redirected to Hindu units of time; I'll ping Vinay Jha in case they remember. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig or Retarget to Sristi (given name), depending on whether the name constitutes a primary topic (I have no opinion on that, but the other uses probably aren't derived directly from the name - as mentioned above, "Srishti" is the Sanskrit word for creation). If retargeting, also create Srishti (disambiguation) for the other uses. The target doesn't mention "Srishti" at all so is clearly not a good target. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 09:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus that the current target is inappropriate, but is there a PTOPIC? I'll try to draft a DAB in any case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 01:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cremastra (u — c) 21:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Atoms

[edit]

Not a common or likely misspelling, virtually no incoming targets. If for some reason it is kept, I would say retarget to the John Adams dab page. Otherwise, my vote is Delete. TNstingray (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 01:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlueChew

[edit]

This should be deleted because "BlueChew" (or even "blue chew") are not mentioned in the target article at all, so how do we know that that refers to the same thing? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Less than a minute on Google tells me this is a very notable brand of Sildenafil tablets so the target is correct. I'm not familiar with the consensus about when brand names should be listed on medical articles though so I'll leave a note on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Comment Actually, BlueChew is a brand of several chewable erectile disfunction drugs. As well as sildenafil, they also offer tadalafil and vardenafil under the Blue Chew brand name. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gxarha

[edit]

Redirect title appears to be a musician that happens to come from this area? Not mentioned at target article, possible promotion LR.127 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't otherwise guess what this is. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Il giustiziere

[edit]

As per WP:RFOREIGN, this is a translation of the film title with no significance LR.127 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an English-language film produced in the UK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOR. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOR. This is an English language Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I originally created the redirect. It was motivated by encountering the Italian movie title in English-language content about the soundtrack music by Italian composer Ennio Morricone. If it does qualify as a redirect worth keeping, it would be under "topics for which a non-English title is in common use even if that is not the common English". A majority of the English language retail sites selling the soundtrack album use the Italian title, though that's not a great authority to cite. I'm okay with whatever this discussion concludes. Joseph Hewes (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

[edit]

Tin Building

[edit]

I don't think there is a primary topic for this term as there are many "Tin buildings": [15] Awesome Aasim 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the primary topic is probably not Student Competition Center, whose association with a Tin Building is not as strongly attested in secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koal

[edit]

so... it was originially created as the "latin root for the atomic symbol", but that'd be kali, itself from the surprisingly not latin word alkali. not exactly a plausible mishearing. general results are mostly giving me koalas, and refined results are giving me contexts in which "koal" stands for literally anything else (and also mentions of this redirect i guess). i'm confused and lost and haven't even found anything supporting it as a plausible misspelling of coal. opinions? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never been seen

[edit]

of all the terms that exist, this is definitely one of them. unmentioned in the target (as a term, that is), not primarily associated with unseen characters, no definition on wiktionary, results gave me tiger shirts cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsee. No particular affinity towards characters, and I can't think of a good actual target beyond a crosslink to Wiktionary, which I don't think is helpful here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DQw4w9WgXcQ

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect was deleted via discussion in 2019. However, comments from a recent RfD seemed to insinuate the redirect dQw4w9WgXcQ should exist; this ID is also now mentioned in the body of the article. Given that this redirect may be repeatedly CSD'ed for G4 when created, I wanted to bring it back to RfD to either confirm that it should not exist or provide community consensus that it should exist. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep particularly with the new content (which even if ends up being cut down some definitely seems due to be mentioned). (My guess is it'd be possible to do so for the zoo video as well, so that's a support for keep there if any sort of visible usage of the ID is added to the article.) Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe I'm just a nerd, but I immediately recognized this as the rickroll URL the moment I saw this on my watchlist. With the URL now explicitly mentioned in the article, I think it is worth keeping this time. - ZLEA T\C 19:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I don't think this should be standard practice for all articles about YouTube videos, which aren't usually recognizable by their URLs, the particular history of Rickrolling has led to this string of characters from the bare URL being recognized enough by at least some potential readers to justify it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Most youtube IDs are extremely unlikely to be notable, nor even noteworthy (a wikipedia term of art distinction), and should not be kept even as redirects. This one is a very notable exception to the general rule... the ID itself has garnered attention and notability, and we even have a WP:DUE mention of it now in the article. It might even be appropriate to redirect DQw and XcQ as well, as I've seen a lot of people say they memorize just those portions, but we don't have a reference for that at the moment so I won't push it. Fieari (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wanted to comment because there seems to be a misunderstanding about what "WP:G4" applies to. Notably, G4 does not apply to redirects where the reasons for deletion no longer apply. As it happened in 2019, Rosguill commented that "[the ID] no usage history here on Wikipedia", a sentiment which was largely shared in that discussion. That was the case in 2019, and was STILL the case as of October 25th, 2024; no history of usage.
As of October 27th though, there WAS suddenly a history of usage on Wikipedia, i.e. history being implemented that very moment by User:Hydrangeans a couple days ago, which drastically changed the context and structure of Rickrolling and its usage of "dQw4w9WgXcQ" in prose. This nullified many of the original deletion rationales of 2019, as it was now talked about on Wikipedia which was the concern 2019 dissenters brought to light. Now the circumstances have changed, and the ID is able to exist as a redirect, pointed at entirely newly-written material at the target which did not exist in 2019. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if there was a problem with the course of the original 2019 RfD decision though, this should have been sent to WP:DRV, not totally reinstated out of process and sent back to RfD again. The circumstances for deletion at RfD and multiple G4s WERE valid when those deletions occurred. The original deletion was at a publicized community discussion, in a deletion venue. If the reasons for deletion no longer apply (from the new content added in 2024), this should have been created from scratch, not have every deleted revision reinstated from the last 6 years. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A new redirect was created from scratch, by Fieari, as a result of the 2024 discussion. I raise no objection to anything in the 2019 discussion, but when Significa liberdade deleted the redirect despite the reasons offered in the 2024 RfD, I didn't know what else to do but ask her about it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the clarification about the intricacies of G4, but I hope that in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO this isn't a reason to somehow delete the redirect all over again and start from square one. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I was explaining the intricacies because significa liberdade did not follow the deletion policy (and in doing so, brought back my G4 tag placement into the page's history) and I wanted to clarify that. There are worse things to do of course, but all of the past edits should still be deleted because all of those deletions were valid and now it seems that this redirect WASN'T deleted 3+ times already.
Fieari's creation was also out of line and contrary to the 2019 consensus because nothing was changed in the article and the status quo was entirely the same as it was during 2019's discussion, as it was in October 25th 2024. It was ONLY after you made the changes that directly addressed the 2019 deletion rationale, when G4 would no longer apply and the page could be recreated, from scratch. This means that the revisions deleted from community consensus should stay deleted. This is not WP:NOTBURO, this is honoring discussion consensus. I for one do not want my previously deleted (& correct at the time) CSD tag to come back into the history and I hope that is a reasonable stance. Utopes (talk / cont) 10:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Utopes (and Wikipedia, in general)! I'm still learning the ropes as a new admin, and I should have received a bit more input about how to handle this situation before undeleting all revisions. I'm seeking assistance in rectifying this error so the rightfully deleted versions remain rightfully deleted. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies as well, mea culpa. I was not really familiar with the WP:DRV process, and figured that the discussion here was enough, given that the previous discussion had been fairly old. Please forgive my good faith effort, and feel free to WP:TROUT me. Fieari (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes You are indeed being very bureaucratic here. "I for one do not want my previously deleted (& correct at the time) CSD tag to come back into the history" is not at all "a reasonable stance". A reasonable stance would be related to improving the encyclopedia, and this is about as far as possible from that. I generally have a high opinion of you as an editor, but this is silly, and @Significa liberdade owes no one an apology. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tamzin:, I just left a response on Significa's talk page moments ago haha. I did not mean any illwill by it at all, and I apologize if this came across as overly bureaucratic in writing. I was hoping with my post to illustrate the difference and the bounds in which G4 applied, and why this redirect should have been deleted prior, but should be kept now. I still don't believe policy was applied to the letter. But, you are correct that we are not a bureaucracy, so this will be my last comment on the matter and I won't pursue this any further. Significa is one of the admins that I have the most respect and confidence in, so I did not mean to press for an apology in any form, but instead use this as a learning experience for everyone involved (me included!) about the bounds of G4 speedy deletion and undeletion. If this did not communicate well, that's on me, and I did not mean to come in strongheaded about it.
I should also mention, as a slightly related point, that I recently had a creation of mine get G4'd, i.e. Super Bowl LXIII, correctly so by User:Jay on Oct 23rd. The reason I created that redirect was because I viewed "the circumstances behind its creation to be different from its deletion last year", but I was in the wrong as that entry is no more discussed at the target in October '24 as it was in February '24, when last deleted. When I saw THIS redirect, I viewed this to be similar situation to what I was just tagged on a few days ago, which is why I thought CSD applied, and this deletion was enacted.
As for my concern with the undeletion, there often can be a lot of stigma behind "faulty speedy deletion tags left in a page's history", which sometimes reflect poorly on the tagger. But the page was deleted, so it's a bit weird here and it'll always be in my "live edits". This might not matter to anyone else though, so I'll drop the issue. Thank you all for holding me accountable; this was a useful lesson. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: Given this and other past issues in the applicability of G4 to redirects, maybe there should be a discussion at WT:CSD about adding a sentence to WP:G4 specifically about redirects. I would suggest something like This only applies to redirects if the redirect's title is the same or only has minor orthographic differences, the target covers the same subject as the previous target, and the rationale for the previous redirect's deletion still applies, which I would argue is already best practice. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, but I'd be happy to discuss this further at WT:CSD. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to followup, since I was pinged, I had seen Super Bowl LXIII get recreated on Oct 14, but knowing it was Utopes who recreated it, I assumed there was a context or discussion behind its recreation, and I didn't pursue it. But when Super Bowl 63 was recreated on Oct 23, by an editor who creates and recreates problematic redirects, that get deleted, I wanted to understand if there was a pattern or common interactions between the two. I didn't find any, however I had to nominate the former for G4 since I was nominating the latter. Jay 💬 12:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's mentioned, it's well-sourced, it's notable. Passes with flying colors. Perhaps there's just one issue I need to bring up... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe I fell for that... I blame being too tired to think XD Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't fool me that easily. - ZLEA T\C 16:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erie Von Detten

[edit]

Simply not an alternative name. This was created in the early 2000s, but was redirected to Eriee Von. It hasn’t received an edit since 2005, and averages 0 views a day. Roasted (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget, delete, or histmerge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 12:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado College Tigers footbaall, 1882–1899

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 - obviously created in error

Lists of concert tours

[edit]

It was deleted because the category was renamed. The redirect is still used in two pages, that's how I found it. But is it right? Web-julio (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neverwinter Nights characters

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

There is no such "list of characters" at the target article. The only character that is EVER mentioned at the target, is the unnamed "player character", and one mention of a "King of Shadows" in passing. Was created as a result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters AfD. Nevertheless, this is not a helpful redirect in its current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and restore the content underneath (deleted edits from prior to 2016) so that a proper character list can be created at the target article. 2016 is the bad old days when non-notable stuff was deleted before redirection, even though ATD policy was still the same, we didn't always do it right. Also, naming convention is pretty standard--if you're cleaning up problematic/confusing redirects, this ain't one of them. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreeing with Clemens somewhat. While the list itself is very unlikely to ever be revived, it serves as a record and and helps link to the AfD discussion that took place, which also has a list of potential sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll reproduce here what I wrote on my talk page: The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters was to delete and redirect, not only to redirect. Undeleting the deleted content would be contrary to the AfD outcome. It would need overturning the AfD closure, which would need to be done at DRV, not here. What's more, I can't even find deleted content to undelete. The deletion log indicates some sort of technical issue in 2016. Sandstein 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this should be kept: a) For historical reasons. b) It's just the next best thing we have. There are hits, an people are redirected there, showing what little we have and that we don't have a separate article. c) That's where new content would be added. And there is such content! I can't say if there's enough to establish notability and could change the outcome in a deletion review, but there's more than during the time of the deletion discussion. Examples would be his Kotaku article or this book, p. 20-21. I'd like to add such commentary, but I have too much on my plate already. Daranios (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore the content under the redirect, as per Jclemens; the contents of the old list are now at User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters so they can be moved back to article space. A short list can be merged into the main article until it can be spun back out again. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear to me how this got to my userspace. 2016 was after I'd was no longer an admin. Did I request restoration in the past and then forgot about it, or did someone just do this? Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an old redirect with history, and I honestly believe said history should be restored if possible, even if only to the history of this redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This redirect is not old (2016 from a recent-ish AfD), and does not contain any valuable history. This RfD turnout is quite surprising all within a few minutes tbh. There is still NO characters at the target article, so the redirect is still misleading and this has not been remedied. All the history is in userspace which can be reinstated when it is ready. Does not need a misleading "list" redirect in the meantime. Sources can be copied to the Neverwinter Nights talk page, or grabbed from the AfD directly. We don't do redirects for the "next best thing we have", when we actually have nothing. The only thing that needed to be true for this redirect was to have "characters listed", and Neverwinter Nights does not even manage this in its current state. Articles don't need to exist as a redirect just to indicate where content "should" be added. In fact the opposite is true per WP:REDYES. There is no such content on Wikipedia for this topic at this moment. The only possibility would be to delete List of Neverwinter Nights characters (the replacement created by Sandstein), and move in the material from User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters to the same title, if consensus indicates material should be held here. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom., there is no list. The redirect is somewhat misleading and not helpful. Neverwinter Nights is the obvious search term, and if someone did, for some reason, search on this full name they would be better served with this list of results [16] rather than being jumped to a page that has no list. A case of a redirect actually making things worse. Old content is userfied and can be developed, so that consideration is moot. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, if without prejudice to recreating if usable sources are found. list not present. i think misleading readers would do more harm than losing track of an afd thread in a mainspace page's edit history. even then, deletion would most likely link people attempting to recreate it to this discussion, which in turn links to that discussion, so... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do redirects need sources? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it refers to sources at the target article, to substantiate a mention of multiple characters and allow readers to receive sourced content, when it is specified in the search bar (via this redirect) that the reader SPECIFICALLY wants a "list of characters", one that we don't have anywhere in mainspace, nor any sources for. Redirects do need to be "reliably sourceable", because all material in mainspace must be verifiable, and redirects are material, and redirects are in mainspace. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should indeed have a list of characters at the target, but the content is already available even if not in that page currently. No, redirects don't need to be reliably sourced, per WP:RPURPOSE. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RPURPOSE is a guideline; WP:V is policy. Redirects too must be verifiable. Alternate spellings can be verified by WP:COMMONSENSE. What reason-for-maintaining bullet point does this redirect (a redirect indicating a "list of characters") meet on WP:RPURPOSE? Utopes (talk / cont) 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i said i'd have no prejudice against recreation if sources could be found cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 10:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of molecules by year of discovery

[edit]

The target list of molecules has no mention of a "year of discovery". Is currently a misleading redirect as this cannot be sorted for in the target article's current state. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was previously an article that was created in March 2018 by Zchemic then prodded and endorsed the same day by Graeme Bartlett and Edgar181 respectively. The concern was "This list is going to be useless as there are millions of molecules known, and it will become too massive. The idea of making and discovery of the molecules is also confused". The following day Zchemic redirected the article to the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely as this is useless as a redirect, and useless as an article. Perhaps in future there could be an article extending History of molecular theory with early discoveries. Anything after the 19th century would be far too much. And in the much earlier times the idea of molecule was less clear, and discoverers did not think they were finding molecules. I think that List of gases could have year of discovery added as a column. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this redirect is misleading because it wrongly suggests we have a list of molecules by discovery year. There is a List of drugs by year of discovery linked to at the target article, but that's not the same thing. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 06:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Interlingue periodicals

[edit]

The phrase "periodical" is not listed at the target article. There is no such list that exists here, and people looking for such a list would be misled by the promise of a "list of periodicals", which is not featured at the target, nor a list or any mention of "Interlingue periodicals" anywhere on Wikipedia, as it seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek words with English derivatives

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:

The target is not a list of Greek words. The target is about English words, and not in a list. People searching for such a list would not find it at the target article, and with the preference of "greek words" being used first, the desire is for an article centralized around Greek words, which is not available. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note for those interested in WP nostalgia, this has 2001 history. Honestly, one of the strangest page histories I've seen around. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The target contains multiple lists of Greek words, so that part of the nomination is incorrect. Any list of English words of Greek origin that notes the original Greek word (as this does) is necessarily also a list of Greek words with English derivatives. The only issue is that the lists are organised by the English word rather than the Greek word. Does that make this misleading or otherwise not useful? I don't think so, but if a better target is available somewhere then it should be retargetted there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

No such list of "familiar spirits" exists at the target article. Furthermore, there is no list of familiar spirits in popular culture. Further more, there is no "popular culture" section, and the phrase "popular culture" does not appear at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. what is "popular culture" in relation to the concept of familiars? would stands, ghost-type pokémon, and zelda in that one game where she Fucking Dies count? list not even present in the target anyway, and the pre-blar history and list removed from the target had no sources cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of exits on Interstate 5

[edit]

The target page does not contain a list of exits. People looking for such exits would not be able to find it at the target article, so this search term gives a false promise of information that we cannot provide. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Early Netherlandish painters

[edit]

The target article does not contain a list of painters. People looking for a list of painters would be misled, as their query is not giving them a list. People who are familiar with "early netherlandish painters", would already know the base of "early netherlandish painting", so going back to the general article despite seeking a list does not seem to be useful here. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chalcolithic cultures of China

[edit]

No such list of Chalcolithic cultures exists at the target. This does not appear to be a subject that is discussed on Wikipedia at this time. Previously existed as a list with one entry.

This title may be able to be salvaged if the list of Neolithic cultures is expanded to include Chalcolithic cultures. However, searching for an article about a "Copper Age list" and being sent to an article about a "Stone Age list" does not seem generally helpful in a vacuum, and would be confusing to readers if there is no indication or hatnote about why they ended up here (that there may not have been enough content to substantiate an individual page for Chalcolithic). Utopes (talk / cont) 00:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters

[edit]

No mention of "broadcasters" at the target article. No such list exists at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

[edit]

Worm that turned

[edit]

"Worm" is not mentioned in the prose. Neither is "turned". While the redirect may indeed be novel for Wikipedian usages, especially User:Worm That Turned, this does not seem like a reasonable (or grammatical) way of searching for the subject of "Inversion" (specifically pertaining to evolutionary biology). Utopes (talk / cont) 23:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not specific to Inversion; it is used to refer to many things: Ancient worms that burrowed, but unrelated to Inversion New Zealand political "Worm" debates, Man with a parasite worm infection Ca talk to me! 15:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral about disambiguation, the suggested entries look pretty distant from this redirect's title. Also, wikt:worm will turn doesn't seem to exist? @Thryduulf Ca talk to me! 15:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the wiktionary entry is wikt:even a worm will turn. What is your objection to The Two Ronnies#The Worm That Turned (1980) as a target? Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is missing the "the" and it is in lowercase. I don't think it is sufficiently close enough to the destination for a non-notable subject that is just a paragraph in an article. Ca talk to me! 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Mountain (logo)

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Neither the words "killer", nor "mountain" are mentioned at the target. The article is not about a logo. People who type all of this in, and then specify that they are looking for information about a "logo", will not find it at the target general article for Paramount Television. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a made-up name. My search for the Paramount logo shows it has no name, and search for "killer mountains" showed literal deadly mountains. Ca talk to me! 14:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and because it is highly unlikely that even if the term was in some way legitimate, someone would be searching it in Wikipedia to find, of all things, Paramount Television. Foxtrot620 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

[edit]

I'm nominating this one separately because of its history—it apparently used to be an article about the movie's soundtrack until a deletion discussion in April 2017 (the participants of which that resulted in it being redirected to the current target. Aside from spikes in 2021 and 2022, it hasn't been getting very many pageviews since then, so I'm not 100% sure we need this lying around, plus I've also created the correctly spelled Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) (which should help readers find the intended target), so I'd like to hear all your thoughts about this. Also, the participants of the deletion discussion (TheLongTone, Jennica, Bovineboy2008, Serial Number 54129, and Jo-Jo Eumerus) might want to weigh in on the matter, so I'm pinging them in case they have anything they might want to add. Regards, SONIC678 05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Like My Cheese Drippy, Bruh

[edit]

No mention of "drippy" or "bruh" at the target article. Wikipedia is not a collection of unmentioned memes, and people looking for information on this meme quotation would be disappointed to find no mention of this meme at the target article. Delete to encourage the creation of content about this phrase, if that is something that is desired for this case. If no mention is added, still delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vanity redirect that is not helpful. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This quote does come up in at least one definitely reliable source (albeit just a brief mention) and a maybe reliable source, but I'm not sure whether that should be included in the article at all. Currently leaning no unless there's more coverage (in which case delete). Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough SandSerpentHiss (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trash this redirect along with Lunchly (the product, not the page). TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lmao SandSerpentHiss (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per previous comments. Also, the sentence I Like My Cheese Drippy Bruh may be the most disturbed thing I've read on this website, which is saying something. Foxtrot620 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

三州府

[edit]

There's two possible targets for 三州府: Straits Settlements and Suong. 三州府 is an old alternative Chinese-language name Straits Settlements, and 三州府市 (三州府 + city) is the name historically and currently used by Chinese-speakers and Chinese Cambodians people for Suong. The Chinese Wikipedia has chosen to solve this with a disambiguation page zh:三州府, so this term seemingly cannot be tied very strongly to one article. I'm not seeing how we could create a local policy-compliant dab page. Given the very high bar needed to have a non-English redirect page, we should probably delete this. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cambodia is not a Chinese language subject. But the Straits Settlements are due to the high Chinese population of the region. Thus regardless of what Chinese Wikipedia does, on English Wikipedia, the only subject with affinity for Chinese is the Straits Settlements, and not Suong, Cambodia. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update I stand corrected on the status of Chinese in Suong, being that there is a large population of such in Suong; therefore I recommend that this page be disambiguated per WP:CJKV {{Chinese title disambiguation}} and create a WP:2DAB like that on Chinese Wikipedia because both locations have large Chinese populations and both locations have carried this Chinese name. ;; So either Keep as is and hatnote Suong, or disambiguate -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the ip editor. A hatnote can be added if really desired, but I don't think it is required. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, per the Chinese Wikipedia article for Suong, Cambodia, 80 per cent of the population in the city are of Chinese ethnicity, so the above rationale might not be valid. However, it doesn't appear to be cited properly (the current source does not provide such information). If there is some related reliable source found, then perhaps a dab, otherwise keep. Sun8908 Talk 15:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anecdotal evidence- I mean if we compare the length and detail of the zhWiki article to the Khmer article, I wouldn't be surprised if the statement that 80% of the population are Sino-Khmer turns out to be true. Baidu Baike(keeping in mind WP:BAIDU and all) also repeats the statistic, citing it to what looks to be an offline database. (@Sun8908, does it look obviously unreliable in this case?)
    But back to the matter at hand- Wiktionary lists the Cambodian city first, emphasizing that the usage of 三州府 is "historical". Again, uncited, but I googled and the Promote Mandarin Council (in Singapore) seemingly confirms this, writing that the name was used most in the early days. The Cantonese Wikipedia lists their (unsourced) article for the Straits Settlement under the name 三洲府, but zhWiki only mentions once that it's an unofficial name. Our own article doesn't mention the name at all. It's clearly not a clear-cut matter.
    When I google "三洲府", my own results are pretty evenly split between the city and the settlement, which I think is why the editors on zhWiki chose to make a dab page in the end. They seemed to have the opposite problem as us, actually, with their initial redirect pointing, for four years, to the article about Suong. I'm not suggesting we should follow them, I'm just pointing out that there is unlikely to be a dominant topic. I suppose if somebody wants to make a dab page, they could, I suppose? Three States is a direct translation, and already a dab page, but I don't think we really make dab pages for direct translations where the direct translation is not used in English. A dab for the direct transliteration might be better, if anybody wants to make one? I'm not convinced it would aid people trying to navigate the English Wikipedia, but I suppose it wouldn't be harmful. A hatnote could be a solution, but I'm not sure how useful non-English/Latin hatnotes for unofficial names are.
    On a personal note, this is why WP:RLOTE based on unofficial nicknames can be problematic- the predominant argument to keep is that Suong, Cambodia has no affinity with the Chinese language. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want you to note that we indeed have dab pages with Chinese characters as title. We could do that if it turns out there isn't a main article between the two entries. That being said, a main article should be decided with the likeliness that English speaker would more likely want to search. I think there are Chinese-language newspapers in Cambodia using that name to refer to the Cambodian city, so it might worth a dab. Sun8908 Talk 05:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Dutch general election

[edit]

There is no election planned in 2025 Dajasj (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to Elections in the Netherlands#2023 general election. According to 2023 Dutch general election, that election was expected to take place in 2025 but was called early on short notice, so this is a very plausible search term. I've added a summary to the target article that explains this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would then be more sustainable to link to redirect to 2023 Dutch general election, because the section header will be changed after the next election (and we will have forgotten about it). Also avoids duplicating content.
    More generally I disagree with redirecting with a hypothetical situation, but in this specific case it is also ambiguous because 2025 could also refer to a hypothetical snap election after 2023 (if the cabinet fell today, that would be the earliest moment). Dajasj (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cabinet failing before the next expected election is different to the expected next election unexpectedly not happening. Sources regularly talk about the next expected election, so there will be sources from pre-July 2023 talking about the 2025 elections that people will see and search for information about. Sources since that date don't expect 2025 elections, they talk about 2028 elections in the expected manner. If elections do happen in 2025 then obviously this redirect will be correctly usurped by an article about those elections. That article will mention the circumstances and explain things for those who arrive looking for what became the 2023 election. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nominations

[edit]

Good Article nominations and Good article nominations somehow have different targets. It should be noted that the FA equivalent, Featured article candidates, doesn't redirect to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete both, at least for now. i don't think the average reader will want to dip their toes into gan territory. also, @Steel1943, what's that blockquote doing in the nom's rationale? was it put there by accident, or...? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communism:Overview

[edit]

That is one very implausible redirect. It isn't even a proper subpage back when subpages in the mainspace were allowed. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Started out as a duplicate article. Our article on "communism" is not an specific overview article, its just an article about communism. Ca talk to me! 14:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space In Stereo

[edit]

There is no mention of the redirect on the NASA article and google doesn't show anything related to NASA either. Looking at its history, it appears to be some sort of failed article on a non-notable subject that doesn't even focus on NASA specifically as it has ESA and Soviet space program too. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change Redirect May be referring to the STEREO program, which was on it's own significant to recieve it's own Wikipedia article (STEREO). It is a reasonable redirect for that, so I would say the redirect should be changed from NASA to STEREO. Foxtrot620 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't change the fact that there is no mention, nor offers no context. This used to be an article about a non-notable music album that doesn't even mention STEREO at all, not to mention the fact that the redirect would still be implausible at the proposed target. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per @TeapotsOfDoom, any connection between the topic phrase and NASA or the STEREO spacecraft program is tenuous and unsourced. A search engine and social media search returned zero uses in WP:SECONDARY sources, and although NASA and STEREO sporadically appear in the search results, most of the results have to do with sound engineering. Carguychris (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starlow

[edit]

Starlow debuted in this game, but she appears in later entries too. She doesn't have an entry on List of Mario franchise characters though. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep in absence of that entry, like popple (nintendo) redirecting to superstar saga when he was also in dream team cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grooving

[edit]

Wiktionary is probably not the best target and it used to redirect to Groovin'. That being said, searching up grooving on google would simply take you to the definition of groove, so I don't think the old target is a good option either. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Site-specific Comedy Opera

[edit]

According to the internet "site-specific theatre refers to a theatre performance which is staged in a non-traditional space". This needs to be re-targetted, but I'm unsure where. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - If you're being specific enough to type this entire phrase, I don't think you'd be WP:ASTONISHed to end up at this target. I'm not sure we have better. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, definitely do not keep but open to retargeting as necessary. No mention of "site-specific" or "opera" at the target article, so people searching for this term would be misled by the promise of content on this term that we don't have. No mention of "Site-specific Comedy Opera" anywhere on Wikipedia, so honestly this should probably just be deleted as the RfD default (no valuable history being lost), but OP seems to think there could be another target possibility. I can't think of one so I say delete for now. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant retarget if there is a good target. If not, then deletion would be my !vote. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tapestries Muck

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target page making this unhelpful for users. Seems to be a random furry videogame(?). Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Decided to do a history dive.
-This is a remnant of a 2015-era article on the game, that was linked to from both Furry fandom#Role-playing (circa September 2015) and TinyMUCK
-On October 6, 2015, this article was listed for deletion at AfD. The result, on October 11, was Redirect to what was, at the time, its mention in Furry fandom#Role-playing (see above). However, I'd like to point out that while the nominator, did advocate for redirection, the !votes were instead a vote for redirect/merge and a vote for merge, so I'm not entirely certain why the closer did a simple redirect instead.
-ONE DAY after the AfD closed, user:Chaos5023-- who I'd like to point out, participated in the discussion-- saw that the link to Tapestries MUCK on the Furry fandom page was now a circular redirect, and that the statement itself was unsourced, and decided the best course of action was to remove the entire statement. On its own, I'd agree with Chaos5023, but it does kinda render the AfD discussion moot...
-...because now we're here, 9 years later
I'm actually uncertain what to do here. My first instinct is to retarget to TinyMUCK, but that has the same issue that Furry fandom#Role-playing had-- remove the now-circular redirect, and there's no reason left to mention Tapestries MUCK, the existing mention is completely unsourced. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking for sources that mentioned Tapestries, as I felt that might be the easiest way to unravel this knot, but had no joy in my (admittedly somewhat cursory) efforts. Short of redirecting to TinyMUCK, perhaps it's time to delete this redirect. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling Tapestries (MUCK) as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, AfD result was to redirect, & not mentioned at the furry fandom article, and should not be mentioned at Tiny MUCK either in its unsourced statement. It's generally not a good idea to have a redirectto a location to "just be an example" and do nothing else; people looking for this particular topic would be disappointed by the content (i.e. lack thereof) at the TinyMUCK general article. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

康米

[edit]

From what I can see online, this WP:RLOTE appears to be a niche term for Communism, though it isn't mentioned at the target and might meet WP:RFD#DELETE 8 as an obscure term, or it might be a redirect from a common word or concept that might be inappropriate as per the essay WP:RLOTE#Examples. Fathoms Below (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE. Apparently this is a slang term, possibly originating as a transliteration of the English word "commie". Might be worth a redirect at zh.wikipedia, but not here. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dimethylxanthine

[edit]

This is not the only dimethylated xanthine. Retarget to Xanthine#Pharmacology, which has a list of some sort? 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lambert - Emma Goldman Institute For Anarchist Studies

[edit]

This seems to be a form of tagline (like "Einstein, Princeton University"). I don't believe it is useful. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dirhodium tetrakis(trifluoroacetate

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

Murgh cholay

[edit]

The target dish is detailed as vegetarian, and has no information about murgh, murg or chicken. Delete, as I see no other article on enwiki with this specific murgh dish. Jay 💬 08:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was going to get to this one, probably tomorrow or in the next couple days (whenever I got back around to the Murgh topic). No mention of "murgh cholay" at the target article, thereby making this a misleading redirect as we do not discuss this subject or any mentioned variations of murgh there. Retarget to Pakistani cuisine#Punjab where the dish is discussed with the most depth I've found. Readers can then scroll down two sections as it is also discussed in the #Saraiki section. It is also mentioned at Lahori cuisine, but with little depth. As long as it doesn't stay pointed at a page where it is never mentioned on. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I did not do a good job of searching. I have struck off that part from the nomination. Added a citation needed at Pakistani cuisine#Punjab since that section seems to be a summary of Punjabi cuisine which does not have mention. Jay 💬 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress

[edit]

Neither of the words "joke", nor "stress" are listed at the target article. As it happens, this is the subject's username at Wikipedia (i.e. User:Jokestress). While it may be an "alternate name for Wikipedians", currently this exists without any context in its current form, and does not explain to uninformed readers why this combination of real word "joke" and real word "stress" go to the location of Andrea James. We don't generally created redirects for unmentioned online aliases that people might have on their social medias, so I don't see why we would have a Wikipedia redirect for a Wikipedia user name in this case, especially so if such username is never mentioned or alluded to in this article. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless mentioned. I don't have an opinion about whether it should be mentioned, but unless it is the redirect is confusing and hinders people searching for the username. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's mentioned and apparently notable that she edits wikipedia. Inclusion may be warranted in that case, which would imply keeping the redirect. I'd add it myself, except... quite frankly, I'm not sure how to word it, as adding it to the end of the sentence would imply that she contributes to the entire list of various places under the name Jokestress, when it might only be here that she uses that name. Fieari (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd need, I think, a reliable independent source that considers her username to be worthy of mention to justify adding to the article I think. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As another note, it is possible to discuss her Wikipedia editing activities, without needing to redirect her own Wikipedia username there. It is currently mentioned in the prose that she contributes to Wikipedia, which seems to be enough at this time. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just left a note about this discussion at user talk:Jokestress. While her views on the matter (if she has any) should not necessarily be decisive they should certainly be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rather surprising that Jokester contains the article that it does. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hill (journalist)

[edit]

There is no mention of "Joe" or "Hill" at the target article. Was previously tagged for WP:BLPPROD in 2012 because it did not have any sources. In fact, it has been 4,494 days that this page has not received a source. (Even if the page happens to be a redirect at this time, BUT I digress on that front). In any case, the BLP PROD timer was cut short by then-admin User:Selket, with the edit summary "this is better and won't get deleted". However, this solution was NOT "better", and "won't get deleted" is a bold claim for a BLPPROD, even back then in 2012. In any case, this has been a misleading redirect over the last 12 years, which all-the-while promised incoming searchers that "this is the location where you can read about Joe Hill the journalist", but no such information has ever existed here, as it seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention. My very cusrsory search on DDG did not find anything mentioning a journalist by the name of Joe Hill. If sources are found, it is trivial to recreate. Ca talk to me! 14:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Salamanca

[edit]

There are multiple uses of "Joaquin Salamanca" on Wikipedia. However, "Joaquin" does not appear at the target article, so any person navigating to this redirect would be misled by the promise of content that we aren't able to deliver on. Especially with Joaquin's existence within the text of other pages, this is currently misleading, and should be deleted (or retargeted, if appropriate) per WP:REDYES to encourage the creation of content about this character, as such content does not exist here at this time. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jank fraction

[edit]

This has always been a redirect since 2009. No mention of "jank" or "fraction" at the target article. No mention of "jank fraction" anywhere on Wikipedia. No relation to the subject upon searching for this phrase in external search engines.

As much as it pains me to say it, but after 15 years, it seems to me the only reason this redirect exists is because it is the backward pronunciation of swapping the "fr" and the "j" from Frank Jackson, i.e., you get Jank Frac(ti)on. Unless I'm missing something. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as an implausible... nickname? joke? pun!? naturally, results gave me nothing cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the above. Seems like a spoonerism, but that doesnt mean its helpful for anyone and there doesn't seem to be any external references to it. BugGhost🦗👻 17:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spoonerisms are not really plausible searches. Fieari (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Condra-Bogan

[edit]

This page has always been a redirect. No mention of "Condra" or "Bogan" at the target article for Washington Nationals minor league players. At the time in 2018, this redirect was created to a dedication section, presumably discussing this presumable player. However, such a section is long gone. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackask

[edit]

No mention of "Jackask" at the target, nor any mention anywhere on Wikipedia outside of one, on John Milhiser, where it is listed as a "television title" that he acted in. For a Youtube series that is intended to be pronounced similarly to Jackass, such a misspelling seems to be the likely ask for searchers of this term. Especially since this Youtube series is not discussed at the target article for Jacksfilms. The singular mention at John Milhiser can very well be a piped link to Jack's general article, forgoing the need to have a potentially misleading redirect as a result. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrocal

[edit]

No mention of "hydrocal" at the target article. There is a dedicated section at Glossary of sculpting#Hydrocal which seems like a great alternative. In this case, I intended to WP:Boldly go through with this, forgoing an RfD (a speedy retarget may be suitable imo). However, it seems that there is also HydroCal at Hydroponics#Software, which caused me to doubt the idea of targeting this to a glossary, when perhaps it can be incorporated back on Plaster or disambiguated (although with only two options, disambiguation seems unlikely to be necessary). Nevertheless, wanted to ask here just in case. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Chips

[edit]

There is no mention of "Hot Chips" or implication of a Hot Chips conference at the target article. Unclear why such a hatnote is needed. This should be pointed to the same target as Hot chips, in the absence of a need to specify WP:DIFFCAPS at this title, as it currently seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. मल्ल (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Google tells me that IEEE does run a conference named "Hot Chips", and in fact, has been doing so long enough that google is giving me 35th anniversary pages for the thing, but we currently have no information on said conference anywhere on wikipedia that I can find, and as such this redirect is not helpful. To the closer: make certain to remove the hatnote when changing the target. Fieari (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herd morality

[edit]

There is no mention of the phrase "herd morality" at the target article. However, the term IS mentioned and discussed on Herd behavior, accredited to Friedrich Nietzche. However, someone looking for this term I feel would prefer to end up at a location that gives evidence and merit to this exact phrase, and Herd behavior wikilinks to Friedrich Nietzche. Herd mentality is also a similar redirect that exists and may be able to be employed in some manner, possibly, if hatnotes are considered in this case. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Herd behavior#Early research as it's the specific section where herd morality is mentioned. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liongate Home Entertainment

[edit]

Liongate Capital Management was an investment management company, and therefore was never involved in the entertainment industry, let alone home media. This is likely a misspelling of Lionsgate Home Entertainment. AKK700 07:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget - Agreed a retarget to Lionsgate Home Entertainment make much more sense. Sargdub (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her Royal Hotness

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This designation is not mentioned at the subject. Redirect is confusing, misleading, ambiguous and undiscussed. People looking for this term are looking for encyclopedic coverage of such a buzzword "her royal hotness", which is not currently found at the page for Pippa Middleton nor anywhere on Wikipedia. This is a novel term, and hasn't ever been mentioned at the subject's article, since the last bout in 2020. No coverage of the phrase "her royal hotness" anywhere on Wikipedia, so this WP:Surprising non-RS term should be removed. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The are oh so many ladies (and dishes) with this nickname. The only one link in the first page of Google search that mentions the current target is actually this redirect. It is therefore grossly misleading. Викидим (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by a user now globally banned from all wikimedia projects. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Renerpho (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My !vote was previously based on personal experience of hearing this term generically applied to nearly any "hot girl", particularly those seen as "higher class", by peers. Google, on the other hand, makes it fairly clear that this is attested to refer to this one person, so extremely consistently it makes for an overwhelming WP:PTOPIC. No, it's not mentioned in the article, nor should it be, as the vast number of sources that use it so overwhelmingly often are not reliable... but redirects are not article content, and need not be held to the same sourcing or inclusion standards. This redirect will help users who encounter the term in the wild find out who is being referred to. Fieari (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henț River

[edit]

"Hent" is not mentioned at the target article. It is mentioned as a part of Săcuieu (river), as well, and should be pointed at a location where such a river is discussed. However, the target appears as if it may be ambiguous, and the redirect has history. Unsure what to do here. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahn Mahlay

[edit]

There is no mention of "Hahn" or "Mahlay" at the target article. There is no mention of "Hahn Mahlay" anywhere on Wikipedia. This page has always been a redirect, and previously targeted a list of characters, which has been long since removed. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gomberg radical reaction

[edit]

There is no mention of "Gomberg radical" or "radical reaction" at the target article. However, there are mentions of "Gomberg", "radical", and "reaction", intermittently, but never that close to each other (Gomberg is mentioned twice in the prose, for the Gomberg dimer and use of his full name.)

Per the edit summary, this was created to "sync with other wordings (this one matches de.wp)", which syncing seems to be good. That said, somebody looking for this radical reaction on the ENwiki, would not receive information for this full search term at the target article. It seems that it may be a good idea to have these be synced, but this should only be the case if there is some sort of content that can substantiate this redirect, and provide information for people who use this term, at the target article. Such mainspace context or content does not seem to exist at this time. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added multiply-cited content identifying this chemical (or its class) as the "Gomberg radical". There is another reaction known as the Gomberg reaction that is not about triarylmethyl radicals. So having this redirect for this type of reaction of his vs that other reaction at an alternative formal name (Gomberg–Bachmann reaction) solves the DAB. There are a bunch of lit hits for "Gomberg reaction" meaning the method he used to generate triarylmethyl radicals, which is part of this article's content. DMacks (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the inclusion! The mention of "Gomberg radical" looks good, and at that point, the notion that this would be a reaction is implied from the surrounding article content. If no other qualms, I'll refine this redirect to point to Triphenylmethyl radical#History where the Gomberg radical is discussed, unless you feel differently? Utopes (talk / cont) 13:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. I could see it being either the history or the chemistry section. I suspect there will never be enough to say about the reaction itself to merit an own section. DMacks (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Gleeson and etc.

[edit]

The only characters named "Gleeson" whom have a dedicated entry at the target list for, are Jack Gleeson and Mike Gleeson. I am not convinced that these are useful redirects to this target, as we don't have an entry for any of these four so there is hardly anything to read or learn about, besides a one-off mention of one's first name (but no mention of "Gleeson" attached to it). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game data

[edit]

The page in question does not mention "game", and has no affinity for gaming. The data files mentioned at the target article are either text or binary; nothing beyond this. A concept of "game data" seems to be a plausible search term, but the current target is not giving readers any of the information that they're after, lacking the crucial "game" aspect. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as vague. could refer to just about any type of data cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

インターネット・アーカイブ

[edit]

Japanese-language redirect for a subject that has nothing to do with Japan. Dominicmgm (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE मल्ल (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. it has no more affinity with japanese than with any other language cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging TeapotsOfDoom, the nominator of the other. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:Rlote TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uikipedia

[edit]

A misspelling or foreign-language spelling of Wikipedia. The hatnote on the Lojban article notes that it's the Japanese name for Wikipedia, but the article for Lojban doesn't mention "Uikipedia" anywhere (and googling "Uikipedia" shows mostly foreign-language Wikipedias, nothing to do with Lojban). Furthermore, the article has no "The Internet" section. I suggest retargeting to either Wikipedia, or the List of Wikipedias (which includes a list of non-English Wikipedias - the Japanese one isn't the only one starting with U). 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 05:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mollejon Dam

[edit]

This redirect is to a separate dam, not an alternate name for the Chalillo Dam itself, hence, I think it should be deleted. Tavantius (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This would be an acceptable redirect if there were coverage of this dam on the article, but it just gets a passing mention. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Delete per nom and Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Thryduulf, A7V2, and Tavantius: Mollejon Dam is a tiny secondary dam in a small developing country. It will never meet Wikipedia notability standards. Nevertheless, it is possible that someone on Wikipedia might search for it. In that case, sending them to the article on Chalillo Dam (the larger upstream dam) at least tells them some basic information about Mollejon Dam (what river it is located on, what country, and that it's a small dam downstream from the Chalillo). Isn't that better than offering them nothing? Nosferattus (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect as it stands is just confusing for someone who doesn't know anything about the dam, they arrive at a page about a different dam to the one they looked for that only has a passing mention of the subject they are interested in that they have to hunt for. If the target were a List of dams in Belize or an article that included a significant mention of the Mollejon Dam this would be different, but the content needs to come before the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Thryduulf. List of dams in Belize is a sensible article to be created (and a good target for both small dams discussed here), so the argument that there will never be a Wikipedia article doesn't really work. Renerpho (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf and Renerpho: There are only 3 dams in Belize: The Chalillo and two secondary dams immediately downstream from it. They are all owned and operated by the same company and effectively treated as one dam system.[28] It would be silly to have a List of dams in Belize article for 3 dams. Nosferattus (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosferattus: Hmm, I'm not sure... Changing my vote from delete to weak keep (vote changed to "keep", see below. Renerpho (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)), at least for the moment. I'd like to hear input from someone who has experience with lists! Renerpho (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some more information about the Mollejon and Vaca dams to the article. Nosferattus (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit and Liz: The related discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Vaca Dam has resulted in deletion (deleted by Explicit). I didn't bother to discuss the topic there, because it's the exact same discussion for both dams, and there's a link to this discussion in the nomination for Vaca Dam. Would it have made a difference if I and others had repeated the arguments? Deleting one but keeping the other makes no sense. Renerpho (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects

[edit]

Earth is, unsurprisingly, not the only "planet three". This is a highly ambiguous and fairly implausible search term. Ditto for the rest. Delete. Cremastra (u — c) 01:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the first one, keep the three others, there is no ambiguity, except in the first one.
21 Andromedae (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@21.Andromedae Why is only first one ambiguous? Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Planet three isn't the same as 3rd planet, and nobody calls Earth as planet three. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I have bundled "1st planet", "2nd planet", and "4th planet" in this discussion. Cremastra (u — c) 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Other planetary systems do exist, but none is so ingrained into popular knowledge as ours so that random people would be able to name all of its planets, and in order to boot. Right now and for a very long time in the future, "first", "second", "third" and "fourth" planet, said in isolation, will always mean implicitly "...of the Solar System". Cambalachero (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ordinal ones per Cambalachero. I'm unsure about Planet Three. Looking around there's definitely other uses for this term. There is a publisher (for example redlinked on Mad About Boys), an internet(?) company mentioned on .cx, and probably most notably Arthur C. Clarke's "Report on Planet Three And Other Speculations". In that case it clearly is referring to the Earth. Given it is only a partial title match and given there's no actual articles about any of these things I very weakly lean keep but don't have a strong objection to deletion or targeting somewhere else. A7V2 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. It is not inherently obvious that a reader is intending to determine the order from the Sun. Maybe they are looking for an estimated time when each planet was actually created, or some other chronological construct. And even then, why this solar system? Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, mercury was not the first planet to exist. Earth was the first planet to be inhabited by humans. The gauge for determining a scale of "what planet is first" is WP:OR and these descriptions do not seem to be mentioned as "first planet" at the target articles of Mercury (planet) and etc, without the necessary context of "first planet away from the sun". Without the context, this is ambiguous. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crapulinsky

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_20#Crapulinksy for the reasoning behind this RFD. I didn't notice that the other redirect was misspelled at first. To keep this short, retarget to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Nickps (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and a mention added. Searching for the word/name, I did find a number of people referring to this written work, specifically about this name. The following academic paper (a reliable source) [29] even discusses, briefly but specifically, what the name means in Marx's writing. I think that merits a mention. Fieari (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a mention would be highly WP:UNDUE -- it's only even a footnote in your source. And the only reason you're talking about adding it is because this RFD is here. Redirects should follow content, not the other way around. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no mention of this phrase at the target article. Contains no valuable history so no context will be lost on deletion. There IS value in deleting this though, as we will no longer be misleading readers with the promise of "crapulinsky" content that does not exist not only at the target article, but "crapulinsky" does not exist anywhere on all of Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many of us have them

[edit]

The phrase redirects to the Whodini song as a key lyric. The phrase is stated on the article where it indicates that Bone Thugs-n-Harmony sampled the song in their song "Friends", which has apparently been retitled "How Many of Us Have Them" in some release (according to the page. That song is on the album The Art of War (Bone Thugs-n-Harmony album). Additionally, "how many of us have them?" is a poem by Danez Smith. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i made this after a search delete it if its bad GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Recently made redirect won't cause problems or disruption anywhere with link rot if deleted, but it does appear to be useful to someone (above), and I do not have an objection to redirects from notable lyrics as a search aid, even when those lyrics do not appear in the article. It would be nice to leave the redirect be for a while to see if it starts collecting regular steady hits. WP:CHEAP applies. Fieari (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no good target so it's better to let readers figure out what they want for themselves in this situation, given that the lyric does not receive any coverage at any of the listed pages. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I have no objection to redirects from notable lyrics in principle, but – while the lyric in question is probably the most notable individual lyric from this song – I don't find myself convinced that it's recognizable enough for the redirect to be useful. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, the "how many of us have them" line is sampled not just in the Bone Thugs song mentioned in the nom, but also in MF Doom's song "Deep Fried Frenz" (on the album Mm..Food). The existence of this sample didn't really affect my own !vote, but I figured it might be helpful to mention as additional context on the usage of the line. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

[edit]

Universe (artwork)

[edit]

(NPP action) Categorized as 1960 in art, Found object, and Fluxus. Someone from the Fluxus art movement might have actually described the universe as a found object in 1960, but there's no mention of this at the target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 § God (artwork), a similar redirect created by the same editor. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew sucka

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

Wokot

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Jealousy definitions

[edit]

This is no more useful than a Facts about [insert topic here] page. The target page already includes a link to the word's Wiktionary entry. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Twilight

[edit]

Not mentioned at target article, doesn't appear relevant LR.127 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons Losing Money

[edit]

Implausible redirect LR.127 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While there is scientific research pointing to disproportionate involvement of Mormon women in MLM (cf. Whitehead, Deborah (2023-01-01). "Startup Culture: MLMs, Mormons, and Entrepreneurship". Mormon Studies Review. 10. University of Illinois Press: 31–41. doi:10.5406/21568030.10.04. ISSN 2156-8022.), this redirect appears to be derogatory and carries no benefits for encyclopedia: whoever is interested in Mormons and MLM would not type this phrase into a search engine. Викидим (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The user who created the redirect (@Someone who's wrong on the internet) has a history of creating inappropriate (sometimes humorous) joke redirects like ⩘⩗, 2b∣¬2b, and Talk:🚁. These fall under the "who would seriously try searching this on Wikipedia?" category. Do note that they have moved on from creating these and make a lot of constructive edits. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (in the interests of transparency, I probably would not have watched the redirect had it not been mentioned on Discord). I do not believe this meets WP:RDELETE #3 or #8, as such I do not believe there is an argument for deletion rooted in our policies and guidelines. First of all I believe it's arguable that it's derogatory (I'd call it critical myself, but I don't really consider any joke at all derogation), but the threshold for #3, offensive or abusive would need to be more direct than even derogatory to be met. As for plausibility, besides the scholarly article cited above, it is mentioned by a number of NEWSORGs, such as The Nation, Slate, Business Insider, Mother Jones, Fortune, which calls it an old joke, The Salt Lake Tribune, which calls it well-documented and Rolling Stone (most common bastardization) (plus Salon, but there's no consensus for their reliability). Also a 2015 book. I hope the number of RS that have used it is able to convince you that this is a well-attested term, LR.127. I believe this is an WP:RKEEP #3 (it's plausible someone not familiar with the term might hear it, and not know what it refers to), it is neither novel nor particularly obscure, and well within the standards set by WP:RNEUTRAL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the person searching already understands the insult, they will not obtain any information about it in the article. So I still fail to see the utility of the redirect (how does it improve the encyclopedia?). Викидим (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't see the use of it" is not a listed reason to delete a redirect. #8 clearly indicates that both parts (novel or very obscure, not mentioned) need to be met, and the term is neither novel nor obscure. A reader would be informed that the title they tried to go to is an alternate name for the article they were taken to, and (while this is not the forum to discuss article content) the normal way to deal with an {{r without mention}} (other than tagging with a more specific rcat) is to add a mention, to a relevant place, for example, immediately after where the article discusses how common it is in Utah in § United States. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The context you've provided does give some credibility to the redirect's existence. Regardless, I can't decide if it's a worthwhile redirect, so I'm going to change my delete to weak because of that. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very seriously implausible. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alpha301 has explained exactly why this is a highly plausible and useful search term. Adding a sentence at Multi-level marketing#United States and refining it to point there would seem to be even more helpful but without the specific mention the top of the article is most useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noted in RS as a commonly used parody of the acronym, and not insulting enough to delete outright. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at the target, plain and simple. Outside use of the term is irrelevant, since we have no encyclopedic content about it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4-aminopurine

[edit]

4-Aminopurine and 4-aminopyridine are different chemical compounds and "4-aminopurine" is not mentioned at 4-Aminopyridine. Marbletan (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Yoshi

[edit]

Anyone looking up "Black Yoshi" is going to want information specifically about Black Yoshi, but the article on Yoshi does not even include the word black. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unmentioned at target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Falcoln

[edit]

probably an implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mabe Village

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon

[edit]

his name was initially inconsistently spelled, with "gannon" having been used from 1 to alttp in japan, and only in 1 (and later zelda's adventure, but no one cares about that one) in not japan, so it was already out of the equation by the time the cd-i games were out. point is, getting two names mixed up and using an outdated spelling of that name doesn't seem that plausible cogsan talk page? contribs? it's yours, my friend 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plausible and unambiguous; deletion of this does not improve wikipedia BugGhost🦗👻 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. I will point out that even though Gamelon and Ganon are not the same word, they DO start and end with the same letters. Given Gamelon only appears in this game, while Ganon is the name of the series' overarching antagonist(s), it's perhaps plausible to get the two confused-- "Okay, so the name is Wand of... something? Starts with a G, ends with N... oh, silly me, it's Ganon!"
However-- and this is a big however-- the addition of misspelling Ganon does reduce plausibility a little more-- however, I would like to point out that this is also an extremely common misspelling of Ganon's name, so perhaps it doesn't hurt plausibility as much as it first appears?
I won't fight too terribly hard if it's deemed that this combo is still too implausible to be considered. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many errors. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly Weak Keep per Lunamann, plus the fact that while acknowledged as an error since, the original Zelda game does officially use the spelling "GANNON" with three Ns. This was unambiguously an error, but an official and published error. Someone could plausibly remember that it was an error from back in the day, and think it applied to this trainwreck of a terrible game. My !vote is a bit stronger than Lunamann's very weak keep because of this, but it's still slightly weak as I wouldn't feel the need to fight vigorously for keeping it. But I do think it's harmless, with an unambiguous target (even if in error), and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many errors. "Gannon" misspelling has no affinity, this is not the original Zelda game, and we won't be having Gannon misspellings for every single future Zelda game just because it was a typo in only the manual of the original. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too implausible of a mistake. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah, i think 5 delete votes to a keep, a really weak keep, and a slightly less weak keep would have been enough cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are based on the strength of arguments, not the strength of bolded !votes. As it happens, it is 3 to 5 numerically, but WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You may be right in principle but I'd avoid making a comment like this if you're WP:INVOLVED. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'll also kind of disagree with that, since even the substantially weak keep vote that the less weak but still weak keep vote was based on argued that getting two names mixed up and misspelling said wrong name might not be all that plausible cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I could reasonably see someone making both errors. Ganon being the main antagonist of the franchise (and of this game) and starting with the first two letters of Gamelon could potentially cause confusion, as well as Gannon being a typo the first game in the series itself made. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem there is then, a reader could search this redirect expecting the target to contain the subject at Ganon, which it does not. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Grass

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facecore

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This redirect originally targeted Andross, before that article was merged into List of Star Fox characters. Andross frequently appears as a giant face, so the redirect could have made sense (a portmanteau of "face" and "hardcore"?). But since I can't find anything about the particular phrase "Facecore" (either in the two articles' history or on Google), I don't see a good reason to keep it. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffian (Star Fox)

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – looking at the original revision (completely unsourced, never merged elsewhere AFAICT) and wikia:starfox:Ruffian, "Ruffian" seems to be a description of a number of unnamed minor characters, rather than a named character. I'm unsure whether this is worth mentioning at List of Star Fox characters, but I'm leaning towards no. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert the Android Pig

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Spaniel

[edit]

This character has no confirmed last name, and this isn't even the right dog breed. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google shows me that this name is in widespread use amongst fans, even amongst fans who say that they aren't sure whether she's a Cocker Spaniel or a Poodle. It's not just one corner of fandom, it crosses multiple different social media sites, fan sites, art sites, forums, and so on, and also it crosses over into the furry-sphere which is related but distinct from Star Fox fandom. It's certainly not an official name as far as I can tell, but the extreme widespread nature of this name being assigned to this character, rightly or wrongly, makes it a pretty plausible search. As a navigational aid, this will get a searcher to the right place where we have information on the character being referred to. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uppers (video game)

[edit]

I am unsure this game is notable. But redirecting it to Marvelous when there is no information on the game there is not helpful at all to readers. I suggest deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I had created this redirect because the text in Ai Kakuma was pointing to wrong Uppers. I have no opinion on notability of either Ai Kakuma, or the game (the independent notability of the latter is not necessary for the redirect to be justified), but the redirect is actually used (and the - wrong - wikilink existed prior to creation of this one). Marvelous article actually lists the game in the "PlayStation Vita" section. So WP:CHEAP seems to apply. Викидим (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could just delete the Wikilink. If the game isn't notable, then there should be no link pointing to it. If the game IS notable, WP:REDLINK applies and links should not just be created for everything simply as a matter of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already stated, I have not created a new link in Ai Kakuma, the link existed, but pointed to a wrong target. I had simply fixed the target through a redirect. I was not (and am not) attempting to judge the notability of either the actress or the game. There was a broken link, I have fixed it. I have no objection to anyone re-fixing it in some other way (hopefully, this volunteer will also take a look at Ai Kakuma that is entirely just a list of links). Викидим (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term. Sources like this make it easy to add a sourced mention at the redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a mention was added, it would be WP:UNDUE for an article about the entire company. The point of the company article is not as a directory of their games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The mention was there all the time. We had made this situation possible long time ago by allowing articles that look like lists. Personally, I do not think this arrangement to be very printed-encyclopedia-like, but if we want to change it, this is not the place. While this situation is accepted, however, nothing prevents non-notable games from being mentioned on our pages dedicated to the creators (cf. MOS:EMBED and MOS:WORKS, The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles.). Thus, even adding an item would be in perfect alignment with our rules. Викидим (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There already is a mention. And it's pretty standard practice to have a list of games at a game developers/publisher's article. Or even to spin them out to dedicated lists articles when the lists get too large. (Like List of Square games.) This isn't the place to take a stand against this widely accepted practice. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Luxembourg

[edit]

Delete all three.Retarget to Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War. This Euroregion is never referred to as "Greater Luxembourg". РоманЖ (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly redirect to Luxembourg. The thing very definitely exists, see, for example [30] (there are dozens of solid peer-reviewed works using the term). According to this source, the Greater Luxembourg includes "partly derelict French periphery benefiting from the economic spillover of Luxembourg". Having once made an (accidental) stop there, I can vouch for the description. Whether this description matches the Greater Region of SaarLorLux, I do not know (the SaarLorLux seems much larger than what the works describing the Greater Luxembourg imply). Викидим (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War for some historical background of the term. Викидим (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per MPGuy. This is a solution in search of a problem. Whether or not strictly accurate, the term "Greater Region of Luxembourg" is widely used in reliable published academic source (1, 2). As for "Greater Luxembourg", this is also a commonly used term. Ernst & Young offer accountancy services for for "Greater Luxembourg" (3). So too does the UN (4) and the Lux government (5, "Given the important role of Luxembourg in the ‘greater Luxembourg’ labour market, the department could usefully explore funding opportunities in neighbouring regions..."). This is a very small selection. Where exactly is the problem with the current situation? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada bunting

[edit]

I could be wrong, but, based on this source from The Canadian Encyclopedia, this is an ambiguous term. I also do not see it mentioned at the target in any capacity. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loudward

[edit]

No mention in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

august 12th, 2036, heat death of the universe. november 4th, 2024, deletion of this redirect (per nom) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rhythm of ALT

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomos Publishing House redirects

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Cerveny

[edit]

Per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Cerveny, it was noted by the closer that "if there was nothing worthwhile to keep after a merge, the page could be nominated at RfD". Well, not only was there apparent consensus to not mention this individual at the target, there was no merge that took place at all, as the page history/latest edit summary indicates. In present day, neither "Heather" nor "Cerveny" appear at the target article of Guantanamo Bay detention camp. People looking for information about this individual would be misled when they are taken to an article about a detention camp where she is never mentioned or alluded to. WP:REDYES would seemingly apply... but it has already been tried and tested at AfD that this person is an apparent WP:BLP1E at this time (during the discussion in 2020), so it should just be deleted, only be recreated if this subject becomes notable for some other means in the future. Or maybe retarget to Colby Vokey, where she is mentioned? If deleted, remove from the Červený disambig page. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harapanahalli railway station

[edit]

There is no mention of "harapanahalli" at the target article, or any other indication about a "Harapanahalli railway station" at the South Western Railway zone article. The only mention of "harapanahalli railway station" anywhere on Wikipedia is at the overarching article for Harapanahalli, but this article has a good number of problems and only contains two references, so it begs the question whether the railway station needs to be mentioned there either. In any case, it seems that there may need to be a change to either the target, or to the content, or to delete entirely if its not necessary to be included anywhere. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add mention. Railway stations that verifiably exist (and this one does) are always plausible search terms and are always DUE for a mention on the article about the line and in articles about the settlement they serve. Note also this was a BLAR and should not be deleted without an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I'm the person who created this page the Harapanahalli Railway Station which is functioning currently six trains are operating through this station please help me to publish this article
Thank you :) Darshan Kavadi (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Each of the three division articles has a list of the stations within the division. These lists appear to be incomplete do I cannot give an appropriate target, but whichever applies would be a good target. Mangoe (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Birth Index

[edit]

There does not appear to be a Birth Index located at the page for New York City. Birth Index does not exist, the only thing remotely similar to such a scope that I could find on Wikipedia would be California Birth Index. No mention of "birth index" at the target article, and very few mentions of either "birth" or "index". I tried my best to see if there was anything related within New York City#Demographics, but this just seems unhelpful because I don't think this is what readers would be after if they specified "New York City Birth Index", just to be taken back to the page for "New York City". Demographics of New York City could be slightly better, or Demographic history of New York City, that way it's not just going to the catchall page for "literally all of New York City", if we're able to give a target that is a bit more precise to what readers might be after with this particular search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned at target article, only one incoming link from article namespace, and even that is in a reference, not the body text. JIP | Talk 08:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Catching internal wiki-links is not remotely the primary purpose of redirects, and even zero internal wiki-links is not a valid reason for deletion. The primary purpose is to aid users to find what they are looking for, often by typing something into the search bar. Internal wiki-links are only a very very small part of that-- after all, we can always edit wiki-links to avoid the redirects in the first place using pipes as necessary. Not being mentioned at the target article is a bigger issue-- sometimes the existence of a redirect is enough to provide the information a user is looking for even without a mention, but not in this case. For the simple reason that we don't have any information on NYC's Birth Index, we should probably delete, but not for lack of links on wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fund for the City of New York

[edit]

"Fund for the City of New York" is not mentioned at the target article. People who use this search term are seemingly looking for the non-profit organization that shares this name. This non-profit is not mentioned or ever alluded to at the target article. The target article, being New York City. People who use this search term would almost certainly not be satisfied when they could have typed in NYC and ended up at the same spot. A non-profit target is desired, which we cannot offer at this time, so this should be converted into a red link to encourage article creation for this non-profit, if it is notable and verifiable, per WP:REDYES. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fpoon

[edit]

This is terminology that was created primarily from a Key & Peele sketch. Searching for "fpoon" brings up exclusively K&P related videos and the urban dictionary citing them. While this might be a portmanteau of "fork" and "spoon", this is not a widely accepted or cited synonym, and is not mentioned at the target. The common and non-confusing name for this subject is "spork"; a lack of pageviews indicate that "fpoon" may be a novel and obscure synonym for the subject, and is likely to confuse readers. Especially so as "fpoon" is not a real word, or particularly grammatical. People who use this term may very well be looking for the Continental Breakfast K&P sketch, lol. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I do know Key & Peele are hardly the first to come up with this portmanteau. My Elementary School came up with this term (to roarous laughter) sometime in the mid 2000's, significantly predating Key & Peele's coining, and I would have to guess we got it from somewhere just as they did. Conceptually, the jump to a inverted portmanteau is pretty simple, and while it may not be a word I draw serious issues with litigating the legitimacy of a word in a Wikipedia RfD log. Considering there is no central authority for accepted language in English, the fact that Googling the term provides several results (no mater how focused on one subject they may be) is, I think, enough of a reason to say it is a word. Beyond all of that, fpoon is no more grammatical then spork, we're just used to spork. (yes, the fp is not a frequently found constant grouping in English, but novel use of a constant group is hardly cause to call something not a word, if it was than vroom, vlog, dreamt, and bulb are all in trouble (vr, vl, mt, and lb respectively)). Foxtrot620 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "It's funny" and "people have come up with it before" are not valid arguments to retain the redirect. There has to be some evidence of common usage to refer to sporks in that way, which there isn't. See also WP:NOTNEO for more details. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Meh, it's a somewhat plausible {{R from incorrect name}}, and its existence potentially prevents this title from being recreated. (That, and I doubt that the invention of a fork with a spoon-like end, like a handle, four-prong with three holes, then curved end, which is what I picture a "fpoon" being, makes any sense to invent.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Just realized I'm actually thinking of the more likely search term "foon", which is a redirect to a different target that has a hatnote referring readers to Spork. This nominated redirect is nonsense due to the inclusion of the "p". Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm shocked foon doesn't redirect to spork, as I've definitely heard that one a lot. Fpoon doesn't seem far off from that, and I don't really think the target is ambiguous... surely Key and Peele aren't the only ones to have ever used the term. Fieari (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fieari: I was thinking the same thing about Foon ... and I'm thinking per WP:DIFFCAPS, I agree with your shockedness and am considering retargeting or starting an RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski

[edit]

There is no mention of "Eugenjusz" or "Andrei" at the target article. The only mention of "Komorowski" is in relation to the President of Poland, Bronislaw Komorowski. People looking for information about this person, would not be able to find any information about this person at the target article. Do they have any relation to Bronislaw? According to the talk page archive, this person is the "only surviving witness". However, this information would not be ascertainable in mainspace, and there is a problem if the only way this can be found is by delving into the talk page archives. It does not seem as if this person was ever mentioned in the text, and this talk page discussion occurred in 2012 a couple months before this redirect was created. In any case, it is currently misleading, as we contain no information about this individual, and there is no mention of "Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski" anywhere in the mainspace of Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned at target article. The target article offers no clue about who Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski is or how he is related to the massacre. No incoming links from article namespace. JIP | Talk 08:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski is an author of a single book, "Night never ending", the only escapee from the Katyn massacre. No other details of his life are known, AFAIK, and he therefore is often considered a fictitious figure created by his supposed co-author, Joseph L. Gilmore. FWIW, Викидим (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Викидим Is this story, book, or other person notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. I did not find much myself, but then I did not try very hard. Викидим (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing rule

[edit]

There is no mention of "erasing" at the target article, and there is no mention of an "erasing rule" anywhere on Wikipedia, besides a mention on an index for Index of philosophy articles (D–H), which can be removed. People who use this search term will be misled due to a lack of context about their search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This redirect is a {{R with history}}. There was content at this title 2005–2017 (12 years) prior to the content being subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electrotechnology

[edit]

According to the brief page history of this WP:DICDEF, electrotechnology is not simply "electrical engineering". From my external searches of this term, I'm getting mixed results. The question then becomes... what would be the best location to target this term? Because the term "electrotechnology" is not written anywhere at the target. It seems to be a valid question if the two terms are "apparently not 1:1 synonyms". But if they are synonyms, then this, too, should probs be indicated somewhere, and I feel something about "electrotechnology" could be added to the article to substantiate the redirect in that case. This would answer the question for people who use an "electrotechnology" search term to navigate Wikipedia, instead of seeking out the very long article on all of electrical engineering. As it happens, Electrical engineering technology also exists as an entirely different article. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXAP-TV

[edit]

No mention of "DXAP-TV" at the target article. As it happens, "DXAP-TV" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. People looking for this subject will be misled by this redirect, which does not directly address their search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Burnwood

[edit]

Created on August 9th. Exactly one hour after creation, was AfD'd as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Burnwood, and nearly exactly 7 days later, it was closed as "redirect to the Hitman franchise". However, neither "Diana" or "Burnwood" is mentioned at the article for Hitman (franchise), and would be misleading to any reader who intended to find information exclusive to Diana Burnwood, but would be disappointed and misled by this redirect. As the AfD's consensus was that "this page should not exist as an article", it should be safe to delete this one. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhol (Kirat)

[edit]

This is not a helpful disambiguator, as a "Kirat" variant is not discussed at the target article, so people specifying that they desire a "Kirat" form of the Dhol drum, would not receive it when they search for this title. Contains history. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Carroll (academic)

[edit]

No mention of "Carroll" at the target article, and the only mention of "David" is three people named David who appear in the references. This redirect was created in 2018 towards this page (i.e., no valuable history which could be lost; it has always been a redirect). The edit summary states: "Redirect for now". It has now been 6 years since this redirect about a person has been created, and no material related to this person has been brought about. The existence of this redirect misleads people into thinking that we have material related to David Carroll the academic on Wikipedia, when we do not. Therefore, it should be deleted in the meantime, to encourage the creation of such an article per WP:REDYES. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 31

[edit]

No mention of September 31 in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone unify it with #April 31? Web-julio (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darts Australia

[edit]

This is the only redirect to this article. The article for World Darts Federation does mention Australia, which is good, but does not really give any context towards this search term which is already quite vague. I suggest deletion unless there is a better target out there for "[activity] [country]". Utopes (talk / cont) 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danut Murariu

[edit]

There is no mention of "Danut Maruriu" at the target article. Searching for this subject has led me to uncover... his Facebook profile, confirming this is a undiscussed person, and not a synonym for the target or discussed material. People looking for information about a person would likely not be thrilled to end up at the page about a bank. Even if the two are connected in some way, such a connection is wholly unknown to readers who might not be informed on why they ended up here or who Danut Murariu is. This should be converted into a red link per WP:REDYES to encourage the creation of an article about the subject, or to encourage the creation of a dedicated section in a related article. "Danut Murariu" occurs nowhere on Wikipedia, so there is nowhere else for this to point to at this time that could give insight for readers' specific search term.

I have no opinion or desire relating to the inclusion of material at the target article. Salt Bank is a four line stub. Currently the Danut Murariu redirect is misleading, and based on the current state of the two pages involved, should be deleted. Not all hope is lost, though! The redirect can be recreated whenever it receives content anywhere on Wikipedia, which doesn't have to be this week or even this year. It can be reinstated any point in time. But, for the last 13 years, no dedicated material has been added, so this redirect has been misleading potential readers for 13 years, and tagged as "unmentioned" since 2020. This RfD has been a long time coming. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 31

[edit]

The only reasoning for this appears to be "Java (specifically the java.util.Calendar class) allows dates such as February 0 (= January 31) and April 31 (= March 1)." The problem is that that particular class in Java seems to accept any integer for the date. I tested "April 366" which showed up as March 31 of the next year. The internet does say that there is a reference to "April 31" in the The Long Walk by Stephen King, but it is purposely supposed to be a fictional date, even within that universe. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daesh Tunisia

[edit]

I was highly confused by this redirect, and my external searching of "Daesh Tunisia" led me to uncover that apparently it is the "name of an invasive crustacean", per [31]. This blue crab might be invading Tunisia, but what it is ALSO invading is this article which has nothing to do with the subject. No mention of "daesh", "crab", "crustacean", or even "blue" at the target article. People looking for information on this blue crab would be very confused by the topic of Ansar al-Sharia, and if these two DO have a correlation, such a correlation is unclear with zero mention. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daesh is ISIS. This redirect is calling them Tunisian ISIS. They were closer to Al-Qaeda.
This name actually does get used in RS [32], but for Jund Al Khilafa-Tunisia or JAK-T, which we do not have a page on. We do have a page on the Algerian one though PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite surprised we do not have a page on JAK-T PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D'ni Restoration Council

[edit]

No mention of "restoration" or "council" at the target article. Tagged as a fictional element. Page history indicates there used to be content here written entirely in an in-universe style, and any mention that may have once existed to the D'ni Restoration Council, has been wiped out entirely from Myst (series). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

[edit]

Tata (Persian King)

[edit]

There were no Persians at the time of Tata Викидим (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect was actually created by Maziargh in 2010 as a redirect to Awan dynasty, then subsequently made into an article by AnnGWik and since moved to the target of the current redirect (none of that is necessarily a reason to keep, though I will also notify those users of this discussion on their talk pages). There is no Tata on List of monarchs of Persia but I don't know enough about the plausibility of someone (incorrectly) believing this Tata to be Persian to say whether this should be deleted or not. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tata is a semi-mythical figure, but the Awan dynasty dates to approximately 2000 B.C.. As far as I know (I am no expert), Persians came to Persis and became "Persians" a millennium later. If I am correct, Awan kings could not have ruled Persian people. Викидим (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more getting at how likely would it be that someone would search for this person in this way, ie that people would think to search for a Persian king. But given the relative obscurity of this person, that question is probably impossible to answer so ultimately I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other if this is deleted. That said I think adding him to Tata (dab page) would be helpful and I will shortly do so, but perhaps you or someone else would like to revise my wording. A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading per the abovementioned findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that almost certainly the only way someone would find this redirect is by using it or following a link (which would likely be piped given the use of a disambiguator) so rather than being misleading, it can be helpful to help someone who is mistaken to find what they are looking for (but see my reply above as to whether that is likely to actually happen). A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of a redirect is not a "factual offering". The argument for deletion is like saying redirects from typos should be deleted because they imply the typo is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, the target is simply not a Persian king. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo A7V2's thoughts. As a redirect to Awan dynasty, the redirect was getting views from 2010, which stopped in early 2022. The subsequent views were when the article was being written, and this RfD. Ideally we can argue to delete this since we have a factually titled article now. But Tata (king of Awan) doesn't have any redirects to it. What would be a proper redirect title to indicate a king who ruled some thousand years before his kingdom became part of the "Persian region"? What is a more colloquial name better than Persia to refer to the historial Iran region? Jay 💬 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The place is known as Elam or Susiana. Even (Sumerian king) disambiguation would be less factually incorrect. Викидим (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and tag appropriately as a redirect from a (very plausible) error. A redirect is not an endorsement of accuracy, it is a navigation aide to help those who are looking for something find that thing. If someone doesn't know that a thousand years before Persia that land was known as Awan, this redirect will help them. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysolith

[edit]

Not mentioned at target in this specific spelling; is this as ambiguous as Chrysolite? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Googling for "Chrysolith" brings up the Olivine article, which states Translucent olivine is sometimes used as a gemstone called peridot (péridot, the French word for olivine). It is also called chrysolite (or chrysolithe, from the Greek words for gold and stone), though this name is now rarely used in the English language.. Mindat.org gives it as German synonym of: Chrysolite", it's entry for the latter is Predominantly used as a synonym for gem-quality olivine (see also peridot) but has also been used for prehnite and other green gem materials. Our Chrysolite article is a disambig linking to Olivine and other "green or yellow-green-coloured gemstones". My first thought was the completely unrelated chrysalis, searching for "Chrysolith" butterfly does bring up a few people making the same mistake, but not as many or as prominently as I expected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Thryduulf's research I would lean "keep", since it seems largely helpful (spelling chrysolite/chrysolithe/chrysolithos). Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4, may I ask why you created this section? Did you notice a instance of this, or someone searching for this somewhere, or is this merely a hypothesis that someone might? Checking Google Trends, I see no Google searches for this term for the last five years. We shouldn't create redirects for typos we hypothesize as plausible searches (WP:RSWIKIOPINION?) if nobody actually ever searches for them. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot I don't understand your comment - 1234qwer1234qwer4 didn't create the redirect, that was El Cazangero in 2015 (they were blocked for copyvios a year later, not relevant to the creation of a redriect) who targetted it to Olivine. It was retargetted in 2020 to it's present target by Opera hat. All 1234... has done is nominate it for discussion. As for utility, the redirect got 80 hits between 1 January and 9 September this year and 64 last year, which is significantly more than nobody (it's also worth noting that your Google Trends search is limited to the United States). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. Also notified of this discussion at Chrysolite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Geez, a 4th relist, but wow ... the direction of the discussion seemed to change substantially after the most recent relist, so it's worth giving this another go to see if consensus gets clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy

[edit]

I think this "faux Cyrillic redirect" is useless. Even if the faux Cyrillic letters appear in the band's official logo, that's all they are, faux. No serious publication uses this form to refer to the band's name. There are no incoming links from any articles. This also caused a bot to create another redirect "LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy" because the bot thought the faux Cyrillic letters were real. That redirect is even more useless. Delete both. JIP | Talk 22:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep first as a valid stylization of the band's name. It doesn't matter whether a "serious publication" would use it. The band uses it, which makes it prima facie a plausible search term. Delete second as one of many, many incorrect redirects created by Eubot longer ago than some editors have been alive. Eubot is no longer active, nor would such a context-sensitive bot task be approved today. I actually think admins may have used {{db-error}} on Eubot errors in the past? But I could be misremembering. Tavix would know. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first concurrence with Tamzin in toto. Additionally, the insinuation that an improper use of Cyrillic lettering is sufficient reason to delete a redirect would mean that various existing redirects would need to be removed, including: TETЯIS, KoЯn and LIИKIИ PARK, not to mention the redirects for things like Ωmega Mart and GRΣΣK, which while not faux Cyrillic, are certainly faux Greek. Considering the fact that numerous official sources have used these stylings, the argument that no serious publication uses it, even if it wasn't irrelevant, is prima facielly false. Further, the use of faux Cyrillic is so widespread that the same serious publications insinuated above to not use such forms have changed their own stylization, such as what was done to various news organizations covering the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Beyond ALL of that, the fact that there are so many examples where this has been implemented, that while there is no official policy within the Style Manual for it, I'd say we've reached WP:CON, meaning that the redirect is actually defacto policy. Delete Second because that one is useless, and as previously mentioned, was created by a bot that appears to no longer even be active, in which case by all means it should be purged. BUT, the bot didn't think the Cyrillic letters are real, because A) they are real, and B) if the bot "thought" that, it would have interpreted them appropriately, what happened is the bot misinterpreted the Cyrillic as Latin characters, resulting in the horrendous redirect. That being said, the bot's mistaken translation of Cyrillic characters as Latin ones does not make the cyrillic redirect somehow fruit of the poison tree, and the argument that the misinterpretation of a bot is cause to change more than a decades of consensus is, void ex facie as it is, quite simply, ridiculous. If your doctor mistakes your chicken pox for the common cold, you blame the doctor not the chicken pox. Foxtrot620 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1st, Delete 2nd - per above. Note that catching internal links is not the primary purpose of redirects, and zero internal links is not a valid deletion reason. Redirects are primarily a search aide, first and foremost. Fieari (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy per above as a valid stylization of the band's name. Even if this redirect's title isn't plural and/or used by "serious publications," people might still search for the band using the name the way it's written on their logo. Delete LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy per above as an implausible Eubot redirect that should've been booted from the site years earlier. Regards, SONIC678 06:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1st, Delete 2nd per all above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studios

[edit]

"Universal Studios" is typically used to refer to either Universal Pictures, the film studio (as a nickname/former name), or the various theme parks around the globe named "Universal Studios" that are operated by Universal Destinations & Experiences. The parent company of both divisions is also named Universal Studios, Inc., which is where universalstudios.com points to (versus universalpictures.com and universaldestinationsandexperiences.com). Universal Studios currently redirects to Universal Studios, Inc., making it an unnecessary disambiguation, but a recent RM ended with no consensus for a move. Previously, the redirect pointed to Universal Pictures. I'm not convinced a primary topic can be determined here, given the two- or three-way split, so I would call for turning this redirect into a disambiguation page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best case I can present here is that the number of monthly pageviews Universal Pictures receives dwarfs every other Wikipedia article covering some aspect of the company. Outside of Wikipedia, it's much of the same. When you visit the main company's website, the film IP is front and center. When you visit their theme parks, film is front and center there too. Marketing? Yep, still front and center. The entire company revolves around (and depends on) it's film intellectual property, despite having a presence in other areas. Clearly, "Universal Studios" is a term that is most closely associated with the motion picture division of the company. The only other real competition here is Universal Destinations & Experiences, but per WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate, we simply place that in a hatnote like it is currently at Universal Pictures. If someone really feels a disambig page is necessary, we can add that to the hatnote as well. Simple.
BTW, even if the result is no consensus, the redirect should revert back to its former target, Universal Pictures. There doesn't appear to be consensus for that change either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll preface this by saying that consensus is presumed unless reverted, so we do have four months worth of implicit consensus for Universal Studios' current target, and many years worth of implicit consensus for Universal Pictures' current title.
Now, let me present a counterargument. If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine, depending on where you are located, you'll most likely see results for the theme park closest to you. For me, it's Universal Studios Hollywood, but you might get Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, or Universal Studios Beijing. What you likely will not see is Universal Pictures, the film studio, because the word "Studios" does not appear anywhere in the name "Universal Pictures"; it's simply being used as a shorthand or nickname. If you look at sources that discuss the film studio and theme parks, most use "Universal Pictures" to refer to the studio and "Universal Studios _____" to refer to the parks. I don't dispute the fact that Universal Pictures is more notable/important/popular than Universal Studios (the theme parks), but what's the evidence that readers are likely looking for Universal Pictures (a non-title match) rather than the many other pages whose title contains "Universal Studios" when they search the latter term? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"consensus is presumed unless reverted" – I know you know I'm a longtime editor (15 years in fact), so you don't need to explain implicit consensus to me, probably just like I don't need to explain to you that it's also the weakest form of consensus that only exists UNTIL "disputed or reverted" (either qualifies). It should be clear I've disputed it, but even if that escaped your attention, did you already forget about this revert by Intrisit? Or how about this revert by 162 etc.? Perhaps I should also take a moment to point out that STATUSQUO is just an essay with zero bite, since you've used it as justification in one of those reverts.
"we do have four months worth...for Universal Studios' current target", "many years...for Universal Pictures current title" – Really? Prior to May, we had 7 years for Universal Studios → Universal Pictures! You can't see this in the immediate history, because the redirect was overwritten in December 2023 by a page move, but it had been like that for years following the 2017 technical move I linked above. 4 months doesn't hold a candle to 7 years, but regardless of the comparison here, presumed consensus is non-existent at this point. It's the same deal regarding the "Universal Pictures" article title. The article was previously titled "Universal Studios" for nearly 14 years, nearly double the amount of time it has been titled "Universal Pictures". Arguing in favor of recent presumed consensus while conveniently ignoring the previous presumed consensus that existed for a greater length of time doesn't make any sense. Your "preface" didn't do your counterargument any favors.
"If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine..." – I think it's time you move away from this notion of relying on a basic web search for the premise of your argument. You did this in the previous discussion, and I showed back then (as I'll do now) that these are misleading arguments to bring to the table without proper context. The problem with using Google in the manner you are doing so now is that the "top hits" are tailored to advertising. SEO marketers exploit weaknesses in Google's search algorithms, such as PageRank, to game the system and push to the top of search result rankings. The problem continues to get worse each year, despite improvements made by Google and competing search engines. What you are witnessing in the results is bias; a bias toward marketing/selling/advertising. A better test would be to use Google Books, search on "Universal Studios" in quotes, and then on the results page, refine the results by using the dropdown "Any document" and selecting "Books" only (IMO, the other formats are more likely to cover travel and leisure in the form of advertising, skewing the results). Now what you'll find is that the first page is 4 hits movie studio, 6 theme park. There are some Econoguide and other travel-type publication hits on the next couple pages that favor theme parks, but from page 4 through page 10, the hits are predominantly the movie studio, and by a wide margin. I didn't spend time digging beyond that, but feel free, as this is a more reliable result that holds more weight. Do you find that interesting? I certainly did.
In any case, this may not be the so-called evidence required, and a disambig page is still an acceptable alternative, but let's not pretend that the recent change to the redirect back in May has any kind of standing consensus. Should this discussion end in no consensus, you can bet I'll be reverting that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize implicit consensus is a weak form of consensus; I was addressing your previous statement that there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target and Universal Pictures' article title — this is not accurate, although there may be stronger consensus for an alternative.
14 years and Google Books are because Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios, not because Universal Studios is currently the common name for Universal Pictures. My search engine example was an effort to put ourselves in readers' shoes and surface what they are most likely looking for. As I noted in the RM, I agree it's not perfect, but it still shouldn't be entirely discarded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target...this is not accurate" – My statement is entirely accurate, and either you don't seem to fully understand the concept, or you have misinterpreted my statement. Presumed consensus did exist from the time the redirect was changed in May up until the time the recent RM discussion was underway. But it disappeared, poof, vanished, during that discussion as soon as it became obvious that editors disputed the May redirect change. This is why presumed consensus is not worth spending so much time dwelling over or using as a basis for an argument; it is extremely weak. Consensus through editing is no longer presumed when disagreement becomes apparent. As for Universal Pictures, I assume you're referring to the "undiscussed" move comment I made about never getting the discussion it deserved, but I never mention "consensus". You may want to start using quotes to make sure you're getting it right.
"Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios" – I am not following this logic at all in how this relates to 14 years on Wikipedia. Are you trying to draw a correlation between the two that is factual, or just sharing an opinion? Google Books is something concrete we can look at and take into consideration. You're welcome to contribute something as well. The web search, however, is the opposite: flawed and uninformative.
There is also another angle to consider that I pointed out in the RM discussion (which BTW you seem to be avoiding). The pageviews count (1) at Universal Studios, Inc. shot up drastically following the redirect change, which comes as no surprise since we all pretty much agree the redirect change was the wrong move. This is just more supporting evidence of that. It's worth seeing that first and then comparing the pageviews count (2) at the former target, Universal Pictures, you'll notice the 8k+ dropoff that could have happened didn't really happen. A little fluctuation, but not much. The article's traffic essentially holds steady. This implies that Universal Pictures was likely to get that traffic regardless. Kind of an important aspect to consider as well in addition to Google Books and the other points made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how accurate this is, but according to Universal Pictures' infobox, it was formerly named Universal Studios, so I assumed this is why the Wikipedia article was only moved in 2017 and why some Google Books results use "Universal Studios". If the infobox is wrong, please correct me. Yes, I was referring to your comment on the "undiscussed technical move" of Universal Pictures, and perhaps I shouldn't have paraphrased that as "no consensus", but it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates an absence of consensus for the current title.
Regarding the pageviews argument, I no longer claim that Universal Studios, Inc. is the primary topic for "Universal Studios", so I don't contest that Universal Studios should not point to Universal Studios, Inc. I am calling for it to be disambiguated because I don't think Universal Pictures is more "primary" than Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, et al.
Interestingly, my Google Books results look different than yours. My first page yielded similar results, but pages 4–10 actually had mainly results for the theme parks. Perhaps more telling is that most results for the film studio pertain to the studio's "classic films" (typically the monster movies), i.e. when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios. These results were more or less identical when signed out in an incognito tab, so I'm not sure why you got such drastically different results. In any case, while I still don't think we should discard "regular" search entirely (this is how most of our readers navigate the web, not through Google Books or Google Scholar), I took a look at Google Scholar, and the results are similar to Google Books: 5 about the theme parks, 1 about the parent company (hmm, interesting), 3 about the film studio, and somehow the Masterminds production notes ended up on the first page. Second page onward are predominantly about the theme parks, with some monster movies sprinkled in. Google News is virtually all about the theme parks. Are you getting similar results? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates..." – Nope, simply saying it didn't get the discussion it deserved, full stop. In that discussion, we would have found out if it had consensus. I'm not claiming to know what the outcome would have definitely been.
"I don't know how accurate this is, but ... it was formerly named Universal Studios" – Company infoboxes, especially when they're collapsed like that, rarely get the attention they need to be accurate. This one has an entry for 1996–2014 that is conflating the company with the motion picture division (you can read this in the body), which actually demonstrates the point I'm trying to make! "Universal Studios" is often used interchangeably to refer to "Universal Pictures". People often do this. Books often do this. Editors on Wikipedia apparently do this (thanks for the example). Just another real-world example of why it's harmless for the redirect to point here.
You're missing the point about the the pageviews data. I already acknowledged we all agree about the parent company. This is what you need to focus on. More than 8,000 monthly hits at that redirect (people navigating to "Universal Studios") were taken away from Universal Pictures, yet this went nearly undetected in the average monthly views on that page. The traffic there essentially stays the same. I don't think we can ignore something like that.
"...when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios" – So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to explain this, and you are going to move onto the next perceived flaw you can find and see what you can expose. But nevertheless, the company originally opened as Universal City Studios in 1915. Its film division has always to some extent been known as Universal Pictures (there may have been a "Company" tacked on at one point in the mid 20th century). But what you'll notice is that there are books, newspapers, and magazines published from the 1920s all the way through the 2010s that still state "Universal Studios" when casually referring to either the company or the film studio. Interestingly, even from the very beginning, they preferred to drop "City" from the name in publications. Also, it didn't seem too important to distinguish "Universal Pictures" from the main company name. Seems they were always viewed predominantly as one and the same.
That's my personal understanding based on how the terms are interchangeably tossed around in sources. Only in official business relations or documents (or on screen) is extra care seem to be given to "Universal Pictures", which doesn't make it the common name, nor does it necessarily make it a good article title. As for your Google Books results being different than mine, I'll re-run it and post a list of my results. I don't see why those would be different unless we are running the search differently. Google Scholar is fine, but I think Google News suffers from some of the same bias and should be discounted. It's not a good test for this particular topic/debate. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's say Universal Pictures is often referred to as "Universal Studios" by academic sources (I take issue with this assertion and ignoring other types of sources, but I'm just going to WP:LETITGO and move on at this point). For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the studio is just as common as using "Universal Pictures", which is the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers. But how does this show that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the film studio is substantially more common than the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the theme parks of the same name? The pageviews argument is interesting, but I think we have convincing evidence that it is also very common to use "Universal Studios" to refer to ... well, Universal Studios. If the parks weren't named "Universal Studios", that would be a different story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back after stepping away for off-wiki commitments. At this point, the lack of participation from new editors (aside from 2pou) indicates this debate has run its course. I'm actually surprised it's still open, but I will close with this...
Your observation "the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures" relies on non-independent, primary sources. I'm sure you're aware from other discussions that when COMMONNAME is invoked, we seek out prevalence in independent sources. We wouldn't treat a primary topic redirect any differently.
The pageviews argument is just one of several angles given, along with Google Books (despite our experiences diverging in this RfD, which may need further exploration down the road). Then there's the WikiNav data explored below illustrating that guests searching for "Universal Studios" are not immediately jumping to theme park articles as you would expect after landing in the wrong article. The hatnote is right there at the top, front and center, and this might be the most convincing data to date (though you may find a reason to doubt it as well if you are beyond convincing, but if that's the case, why bother debating?). Redirecting to a disambig page isn't the end of the world. Not terrible, not great, not really optimal, but fine for now. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also back after a few days of absence. The portion of my quote you left out is important: the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers (emphasis added). I brought this up because anyone who has seen a Universal picture in the last few decades will likely remember reading "Universal Pictures presents" in front of every film. They won't recall hearing "Universal Studios" anywhere other than (possibly) common parlance or the theme parks ("We're going to Universal Studios!"). This is not advocating for simply adhering to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, I'm making the case that it is the common name precisely because general audiences are so widely exposed to use of the official name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - This seems to have clear WP:X or Y (or Z or XX or XY or XZ or YX or YY...) problems. Using the traffic to determine a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in this case seems flawed. Traffic is going to be driven up because nearly every film from Universal will be linking there as the distributor, skewing the traffic data. You can actually see this as 60% of arrivals to Universal Pictures is coming from other articles (as opposed to search, other namespaces, external, etc.). I wish the WikiNav clickstream worked for Universal Studios, but I think it does not because it is a redirect. Despite the hatnote, people do not get funneled to the Destinations & Experiences page... likely because people arrive via other articles, and they aren't actually searching for one of the Universal Studios parks in those cases. There are just too many options, so a dab page seems to be the most logical solution.
    Link to WikiNav clickstream data discussed. -2pou (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just a preemptive apology to the closer for continuing this very long RfD. The following points need to be made, despite that this round of debate appears to be headed to disambiguation (an acceptable option).
2pou: Glad you jumped in and brought up WikiNav. That's where I was going next before getting sucked into off-Wiki commitments. First, I should clarify that I wasn't arguing that Universal Pictures depended solely on traffic from the redirect. This page gets over 100k monthly views, and the redirect is only responsible for approx 6-7k views. My point was that in the 4-month period following the redirect change, its monthly view count remained fairly steady. There was some fluctuation, but not enough to match what the redirect consistently brought to the table. Is it possible that incoming traffic from other sources saw an uptick during the same timeframe? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unlikely.
So getting back to WikiNav data... You were on the right track, except we should be evaluating the redirect target "Universal Studios, Inc.", which is where people land when searching for "Universal Studios". This is a point of interest, because in earlier discussion we've concluded that "Universal Studios, Inc." fails as the primary topic. We'd like to get a glimpse of where outgoing traffic is headed. In theory, there should be a significant number landing there unexpectedly, leading to some portion of outgoing pageviews headed toward other "Universal Studios" articles. So what does the WikiNav data reveal? Universal Pictures is the #2 hit with 1,520 targets, and none of the theme park articles are in the top 10...Wow! In fact, you have to expand the top 20 just to see one, where you'll also see a partial title match named "Universal Animation Studios" ranked at #12 (151 targets). "Universal Studios Hollywood" sits at #17 (62 targets), and "Universal Studios Florida" sits at #19 (56 targets). They're barely a blip on the radar in comparison. The page gets a total of 14k monthly views, which as we discussed above owes a big chunk to the redirect (6k+ redirected hits per month) that changed in May. These two sets of numbers can help us draw a pretty reliable conclusion.
Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! For all this talk about the theme parks being one of the intended targets for those searching "Universal Studios", that doesn't appear to hold any weight whatsoever according to the WikiNav outgoing data. Something should be registering out of thousands of redirects, but we aren't seeing anything. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) (updated 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@GoneIn60: Sorry; I didn't mean to suggest you were relying solely on traffic. I understood that, I just wanted to make sure we don't just look at the number it spits out without considering those factors because it was going to be a very high number regardless. I did look at the Universal Studios, Inc. clickstream, and I, too, found it interesting that it didn't funnel people to any parks. I was discussing the Universal Pictures info because I was looking closer at the long-term history before the redirect was retargeted. While I think the data for Universal Studios, Inc. was interesting, I'm seeing that the data is a bit older. It says the data was dumped in August 2024, so it hasn't actually captured the incoming/outgoing traffic since the retargeting on September 10. Overall, I do lean towards disambiguation due to the sheer number of options, but I do agree that if it were to remain a redirect, Universal Pictures is the better option. Several articles for older films, actors, actresses, directors, etc. link there intending the (now) Universal Pictures page. (Yes, that can be resolved via clerical edits...)
I didn't realize until now that Universal Studios, Inc. was only "created" (via a split and move of sorts by HeroWikia - legacy company still captured at MCA_Inc.) in April this year. -2pou (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2pou, unless I'm missing something, this all goes back to the redirect change made in May by MinionsFan1998. So the data in August 2024 would be a valid date range to assess.
As for a disambiguation page, I don't disagree there needs to be one. However, I disagree the title of it needs to be "Universal Studios"; instead it should be Universal Studios (disambiguation). We can link to it in a hatnote at Universal Pictures, a common practice described at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate (and also something I mentioned in my original !vote). Then restore the redirect to its original target (Universal Pictures) based on the evidence provided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. I didn't go back through the history far enough when I saw the 10Sep retarget. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't have super strong feelings about where the dab page goes, but I do have doubts in having Universal Studios, Inc. as the target. -2pou (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'm with you about the current target. It's the least qualified for sure. My concern with having the redirect go to a DAB page right off the bat, is that there will be quite a bit of work needed to resolve the issues it creates. There appears to be 3,862 Wikilinks from articles using the redirect, and when you look at a lot of those links, they were created with the intention of directing readers to Universal Pictures.
Here's one random example I checked from the list...Piper Laurie. Just read the opening of the Career section and this source (the latter of which was inserted by one of our great copyeditors who sadly is no longer with us). "Universal Studios" is being used in the context of the film studio. We could potentially see many hundreds, if not thousands of these links now land on a DAB page unnecessarily.
We are left with three options:
  1. Keep as is – Worst one. Universal Studios, Inc. is essentially the history of "Music Corporation of America", how it came to be, its 1962 buyout of Universal, and everything post-buyout. Many who land here will be confused, as they expect to be reading about Universal's history.
  2. Retarget to DAB – Better, but far from perfect. Retargeting here will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly). It will also create the most work moving forward to manually update and correct these links down the road.
  3. Restore original target → Universal Pictures – Best by far given the # of Wikilinks, along with WikiNAV data on the topic phrase "Universal Studios". In addition, we have some loose off-Wiki data from Google Books that seems to support long-term significance in favor of the film studio (theme parks compete but do not overtake the film studio in this space).
Knowing what you know now, 2pou, are you still split between options 2 and 3, or do you have a preference between them? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60: The "Retargeting [to the disambiguation page] will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly)" will not be a concern if this redirect is disambiguated, considering an internal Wikipedia project page, WP:DPL, encourages editors to disambiguate links that link to or point to disambiguation pages, and there are several editors who work on this. Seriously, if there is one aspect of Wikipedia I have seen consistent over the past 10+ years, other than article creation, it is the plethora of editors ready to disambiguate links. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! The hatnotes (on both Universal Studios, Inc. and Universal Pictures) are new and were added by me on the day I opened the RM that preceded this one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
InfiniteNexus, thanks for pointing that out. I did not catch that in the history. Looks like you added the hatnote on August 31, and I like how you placed both options in there (the main theme parks article and the film studio article). Hopefully we'll get a chance to see WikiNav update soon to show September's data. Its clickstream data dump usually drops in the first few days of the following month, and from what I gather, this is usually processed and displayed about a week later on the 12th. We'll know shortly if the theme park company link in the hatnote became a factor in September.
It's also worth noting a few things. Using the "Search" box to jump to your next destination will still be tracked by WikiNav in outgoing traffic. Even without the hatnote, WikiNav would have still been capturing searches from that page. So for Universal theme park seekers getting their searches right on the 2nd try (by being more specific), we would have seen that in the August data. So I'm a bit skeptical we'll see a huge difference, but we'll see. In addition, the version of the article heading into August did contain Universal theme park links in the Takeover section as well as in the navbox at the bottom. To be fair, "Universal Pictures" was more prominent, appearing one section earlier and also in the infobox. GoneIn60 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barangay 79

[edit]

There are at least 3 Barangay 79s, and this one in Caloocan is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:@Sir MemeGod

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

"Degrassi characters" redirects

[edit]

Back in 2021, the target page was moved from the last redirect's title to List of Degrassi Junior High & Degrassi High characters (which is worth keeping at the current target since it's accurate and describes exactly what is promised by its title) to avoid confusion with List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters and List of Degrassi: Next Class characters, but apparently these redirects have stayed at the target for all these months since this move happened. I'm not 100% sure if the current target is the best place to take readers searching any of these terms; but I'm torn between keeping, disambiguating, and deleting; since the target article is the longstanding page of each redirect. I thought I'd bring them to RfD to discuss the best course of action, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Regards, SONIC678 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Head

[edit]

Seems to be fairly ambiguous: could also refer to something like Head and neck anatomy. Not mentioned at target Cremastra (u — c) 14:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That's the English translation of インサイド・ヘッド, the movie's title in Japan. I haven't really formed my opinion about this yet, but that movie doesn't have a connection to Japanese, and like the nom says, it can refer to stuff like the proposed target. Regards, SONIC678 16:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KeepWeak Delete While the connection to the film is a little flimsy, a google search does not return anything meaningful for the exact term in the redirect. There are many other redirects out there that have minor usefulness, and we keep them. If a future editor wants to use this term for something else, he/she can replace the redirect with a disambiguation page, or just replace the page altogether. --rogerd (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further consideration, I have decided that this may prevent a future more valid use for the term from being used, so I don't think there is any benefit to keep it. --rogerd (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Remove While all points above are valid, I don't see any good reason to keep the redirect in place. I see no great WP:CON on redirects to titles from other languages, especially ones where the translation language and target language aren't even remotely related (I could see an argument for languages that are both Latinic for example, or even Germanic and Latinic, where there exists substantial enough similarity to justify that someone might be looking for it). We don't even consistently redirect to former, WIP, or alternative titles of a work given by the works creator in the SAME language (The Psychedelic Soldier ≠ Apocalypse Now).Foxtrot620 (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

A-hunting we will go, a-hunting we will go, heigh-o, the derry-o, a-hunting we will go

[edit]

Despite being implausible, unlikely as a search term, and wholly unmentioned not at the target article, but also unmentioned across all of Wikipedia, the redirect is also incorrect. It should be "heigh ho", not "heigh o". This exact spelling becomes near impossibly unlikely in the grand scheme of things, keeping in mind that all this time we're simply targeting "Yankee Doodle". People looking for the correctly spelled lyric, will not find it here either. No mention of "hunting" at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized: these lyrics aren't even for Yankee Doodle! A-Hunting We Will Go has existed since 2010 so I have ZERO clue how this could have possibly happened, besides expectable carelessness from the mass-redirect creations of unmentioned & unverified lyrics, filled with typos and implausible formatting.
For this page, A-Hunting We Will Go does currently contain lyrics in the article, and the lyrics indeed say "heigh ho". But these are also unsourced and should be removed from the article as well, per WP:NOTLYRICS and not being encyclopedic content. Lyrics can be included on Wikiquote or Lyricfinder if desired, or wherever the appropriate place to put such lyrics, on any site that isn't Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a lyric database). Utopes (talk / cont) 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go anyways, despite the impending removal of lyrics; the title of the song IS present in the redirect, and it would definitely be going to the right place if retargeted.
In other news, this was APPARENTLY created from scratch in August of this year by user:Kjell Knudde; however the history indicates that Kjell was merely adding categories to an existing redirect?? I've got no clue. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go. Cremastra (u — c) 13:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pump up the jam, pump it up, while your feet are stumping

[edit]

Someone who is typing this full phrase is almost certainly familiar with the name of the song being "pump up the jam" at a 99% confidence. At 0.1% confidence would anyone expect this song to be TITLED "Pump up the jam pump it up while your feet are stumping". And articles are titled based on their titles. Searching for the whole phrase implies that certain material related to redirect that implies we contain information related to this clearly lyrical search term, when we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie.

[edit]

These are the first two lines of this song, the lyrics of which are no longer mentioned at the target. No indication on why this song over any other song should contain its first two sentences as redirects, as such an act would be an exception and not the norm. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the title of the target IS present in the redirect, which precludes any accusation of the lyrics searched not being present in the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor

[edit]

"Vor der" not mentioned at the target article. Unlikely search term because pages about songs tend to be located at an article that matches their title, not this. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per other discussions above and below. These are the first lyrics to this song, which someone might remember without retaining the title, so it's potentially helpful for people searching for the song in question. Regards, SONIC678 16:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition

[edit]

The target page can be reached after the first three words. The rest of this lyric is not mentioned at the target page, and someone specifying all this information instead of stopping at "police and thieves" is likely looking for particular information related to this quote; information that we do not contain anywhere on Wikipedia. Zero mentions across the whole site. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the title of the target IS present in the redirect, which precludes any accusation of the lyrics searched not being present in the article. The rest is in the domain of WP:CHEAP. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choose life (quote)

[edit]

No mention of this quote at the target article. Confusing redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters

[edit]

No such list or section at target. However, Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters does exist, but it does not contain a list of characters. (List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Czar since they WP:BLARed List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters in 2015 [35]. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore article? Or simply refine to the "Settings and characters" section of the current target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Jay in that there is no list; someone using this redirect-- which would require someone looking for a list-- would be WP:ASTONISHed to find themselves here. Thus, I disagree with the idea that retaining this redirect is a good idea. I also question the idea of renaming these redirects, given WP:MOVEREDIRECT. Is the history of this page truly important enough to keep that we should rename the redirect in order to prevent it going away when the redirect is deleted, given the extremely low likelihood of it being brought back to a proper article (given its unsourced and non-notable nature)? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. not present, history had no sources cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In some cases not explicitly targetinng a list might be harmful, but this isn't one of them. These character lists are common on Wikipedia and we should take readers to where there is relevant information. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a prequel to Grand Theft Auto III, the game features both new and returning characters. The protagonist is an original character named Mike, who in his quest to avenge the supposed death of his partner, Vinnie, crosses paths with several prominent criminals that offer him assistance. These include explosives expert and firearms trader 8-Ball, Yardies leader King Courtney, and yakuza co-leader Asuka Kasen, all previously featured in Grand Theft Auto III, although their characters received significant changes in appearance and lifestyle to reflect who they were one year prior. is close enough to a list for me. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the "charaters" redirects as implausible misspellings, but weak keep the correctly spelled ones per Czar and others. The target section may not exactly be a list, but as others have argued above me, it's the closest thing we have on Wikipedia to a list of characters on that game. It doesn't make sense to inconvenience readers who are looking for relevant information on these characters. Regards, SONIC678 16:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025–26 Formula E World Championship

[edit]

Nothing on the target page or google about this season. TOOSOON. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope horns

[edit]

It seems to me that the primary meaning of the phrase "Antelope horns" would be the horns of the antelope. BD2412 T 03:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Antelope#Horns per nom. Cremastra (u — c) 13:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any places where there is a need for a redirect to Antelope#Horns? Any piped links that would be made simpler by this change? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that "Antelope" has had 1,872,153 pageviews in the past five years, while "Asclepias asperula" has had 31,121 (and "Antelope horns" has had 140), it is evident that the plant is ridiculously obscure relative to the animal (by a ratio of 60 to 1), which animal happens to be exemplified by its horns. BD2412 T 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently this redirect is from a common name for a plant to its scientific name. If a redirect is needed to link to Antelope#Horns the page Antelope horn could be created as a redirect that would naturally disambiguate. Then using [[Antelope horn]]s]] would link to information about the group of animals. While the redirect under discussion is not currently used I will note that it should have been used instead of the common name being piped to the species name on Guadalupe River State Park. The other use of the phrase "antelope horns" that is wikilinked is on the page Taforalt is currently piped to Antelope rather than to the section. As such I am not convinced there is a need for a redirect to Antelope#Horns. It should be left as it is or turned into a disambiguation page. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget with hatnote. Your average person is not going to know that there is a plant called 'Antelope horns' and would be WP:SURPRISED by targeting to the plant. Meanwhile, there does not seem to be enough in the way of alternate targets to support an entire disambiguation page. Retarget to the article section on the anatomy of the African bovine; add a hatnote pointed to the plant-- "Antelope horns" redirects here. For the plant named "antelope horns", see Asclepias asperula. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget with hatnote. Google Scholar results suggest that the primary sense of this term, even among scholars, is the animal organ. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Antelope#Horns per above. Adding a hatnote to the plant won't hurt. --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Antelope#Horns (there is an anchor for that already). It would be nice to dedicate a section "Horns" to the horns, so there would be a place for hatnote there. Викидим (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India as a potential superpower

[edit]

I would just like to solicit other users' opinions on whether this redirect should be turned back into an article, given how much content it had. GreekApple123 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever was in the redirect before it got turned into one is irrelevant. This redirect is simply a minor variation of the target section header. RfD is not for discussing AfD results, perhaps try WP:Deletion review. Ca talk to me! 05:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-IN

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Th-TH

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Neo-mooris

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra (u — c) 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-moors

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra (u — c) 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make this but AFAIK this is a synonym for the target (or the science temple... i forgot). I'll find a source and add it later PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. There are sources that use this in reference to this topic, but also some other topics. Unsure of what to do here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuwil Binyamin Ya'qub Gharib

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

Çornosturuf

[edit]

Shows up on some Turkish pages; affinity to target is unclear. Cremastra (u — c) 01:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kırıvçe

[edit]

Seems to be Turkish-style transliteration? Regardless, unmentioned at target, and searches have not helped elucidate the meaning of this redirect. Cremastra (u — c) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Necko Jenkins

[edit]

Created as a "likely misspelling," but Google does not show anyone misspelling it this way. In some Southern U.S. accents "Necko" and "Nikko" might be pronounced similarly, but not in a Great Plains accent. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

[edit]

The ancient city

[edit]

This redirect is now in conflict with the article about the book "The Ancient City". I propose this redirect is removed and disambiguation is added to the article on the book. Nuclearelement (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to retarget this redirect to The Ancient City but it looks like more complicated suggestions are being made here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've got Ancient city (disambiguation), I think we should refocus back to this RFD. I originally wanted this redirect deleted, but if that'll cause problems, then I agree to Retarget to The Ancient City Nuclearelement (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murgh

[edit]

created as "urdu for 'chicken'", but apparently only sees use in the context of indian curries, and doesn't seem to be mentioned outside of the page history, the previous discussion, and butter chicken. see also murg i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; the English loanword is specifically used in Indian cookery to refer to chicken prepared for consumption, and not the actual animal-- which is the same use that the far-more-widespread from-French loanwords beef, pork, and mutton have. Those words link to their own pages that talk about the meats' usage in food, rather than the pages for cow, pig, and sheep respectively. Given this, the equivalent chicken as food page is the correct target. A hatnote, though, may be appropriate-- "Murgh" redirects here. For the specific dish known as "Murgh makhani", see butter chicken. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not English, unlike the others, so this argument falls apart. And such a hatnote would be highly inappropriate for the same reason I gave above -- there are many many dishes whose name on Indian menus would include "murgh"; pointing to just one would make no sense. And before you bring it up, disambiguating would also be wrong as entries would be nothing but WP:PTMs. A reader who doesn't know what "murgh" is will be able to figure out what it is much more easily if the redirect didn't exist, both by the nature of the search results, and the prominent link to Wiktionary. Most people would be confused as to why searching for "murgh" took them to "Chicken as food", which would give them no information that this is a word used in Indian cuisine. A simple definition is much more likely to be useful than a whole-ass article on chicken as food. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize how much of English is comprised of loanwords (that is, words pulled from other languages), right? How old does a loanword have to be, in your eyes, before it's an English word? Narrowing in on words related to food, Beef, Pork, and Mutton are all from French, as is Café. Spaghetti and Lasagna from Italian. What about Teriyaki, or Hibachi, both from Japanese? Jalapeño and Tortilla from Spanish? Ooh, Murgh is specifically from Indian, what about Chai?
    My point is that people regularly use all of these words in English speech, and if you were to remove ALL the loanwords from English, it'd sound VASTLY different.
    I'll grant you the idea that pointing to only butter chicken in the hatnote might be a bad call-- but only if you can bring up other 'murgh' dishes that have pages on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I do have to point out that the argument runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL- we can't throw our hands in the air because someone MIGHT make a page on a second or third 'murgh' dish in the future. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Retarget to Wiktionary - The discussion above has convinced me that the search is plausible, but also that we don't have any information on what the user would be looking for... namely, what does murgh mean? For that, the wiktionary entry is, in fact, the best source of useful information to the user. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it wasn't clear above, I still specifically oppose a wiktionary redirect, again, because it hides in-site search results from the user....search results which contain a Wiktionary link right at the top already anyway! Let the search feature do its job. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that search results are not guaranteed to include a Wiktionary link and can be several clicks/taps away depending on multiple factors (including how you navigated here, what device you are using and whether you have the ability to create a new article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Search results DO include a Wiktionary link, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read what I actually wrote you will see there is nothing dishonest about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note your objection, but doing the search myself, it comes up with a number of WP:PTMs that don't really provide information on the word murgh by itself, which makes me still believe that wiktionary is better suited. If they really want the search results, soft retargets provide that option. (Example soft redirect for reference what it looks like: Kiss-in) Fieari (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lunamann. The evidence shows that, contrary to the IP's assertions, this is an English word, but even if it weren't the extensive use in English language environments would make this a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence!? The existence of this redirect is downright misleading and WP:ASTONISHing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, we... we get it, you don't think this word has actually passed into English yet, and you're getting increasingly angry that everyone else says it has. Please don't bludgeon us over it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No mention of this term at the target, so we investigate FORRED considerations. If the word means "Chicken" in Urdu, then any target BESIDES chicken (equaling murgh) would be surprising. However, it apparently has a different definition in English, where it specifically relates to culinary purposes... but such purposes are nowhere to be found on the English Wikipedia, so there is no onwiki verification. There is no mention of "Murgh" or "Urdu" at either Chicken, or Chicken as food. Typically I would accept a soft redirect to wiktionary, but we have to remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This means that not only do we forbid articles from being simple dictionary definitions here, but ALSO it means that we don't create redirects for every single dictionary word on Wikipedia to send over to Wiktionary. If someone types in "Murgh" onto WikiPEDIA, it seems they'd be looking for an ENCYCLOPEDIC entry rather than a dictionary one. We have plenty of articles about murgh on Wikipedia, such as Murgh makhani and Murgh cholay. If someone wanted to look up the definition of "murgh", they'd use a dictionary, not rely on a redirect that can occasionally lie. Especially so without any verification at the target page, or any logical reason for going to a page where its not mentioned. I took a gander at the wiktionary, and the info we have at Wikt:murgh is quite subpar (i.e. a singular word). As it stands, it does not provide benefit to readers, who would receive the same benefit and more from a Wikipedia search result. A search result, which reveals what encyclopedic topics related to "murgh" that we DO have here. The partial-title matches are probably better than assuming people want to "use an encyclopedia to read a dictionary". Utopes (talk / cont) 08:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, retarget to Afghan cuisine#Chicken where it is discussed as an Afghan term. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that anyone searching for the Indian cuisine would be WP:SURPRISEd by the Afghan cuisine target, so that might also be a bad target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "someone looking for a topic we don't cover on Wikipedia, would be WP:surprised if they ended up at a topic we cover on Wikipedia". That's not at all covered in the essay that you linked to, which states "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read." Nobody would be shocked when they search the word "murgh", and see the only place where the topic of "murgh" is directly defined and discussed on Wikipedia (i.e. in Afghan cuisine). It would be different if there was no Afghan mention either, but there is.
We go by what we have, not what we want to, but don't have. If the Indian cuisine target is so important, someone would have added something related to that topic, to Wikipedia, at any point in time for the last two decades, or during the course of the discussion. Or in the future! When something is added for this Indian cuisine content, the term can be disambiguated and new redirects can be created. (Unless there IS currently-existing content related to Indian Murgh, but nobody seems to be stating that to be true. I have not found any that discuss the Indian terminology, on Wikipedia.) Utopes (talk / cont) 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except you yourself have already linked to articles that discuss individual indian murgh dishes, Butter chicken and chana masala (which is the target of murgh cholay). Add to that, Murgh musallam, and Tandoori chicken, which-- while there isn't currently a 'murgh' redirect to it, its own article and the article for Indian cuisine#Punjab describe it as such. Clearly, the individual dishes themselves are worthy of having their own articles that could be linked to in a disambuigation, so I am honestly personally shocked that Indian murgh itself HASN'T been discussed somewhere. Perhaps we simply haven't found it yet? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are Indian topics such as Murgh musallam and Murgh cholay which exist. However, those can be navigated to by typing in the full name of their respective foods. It would not make sense to send Murgh to either or any of those, as a partial title match. Hence deletion is also on the menu, pun intended. :v On that note though, neither "murgh" nor "cholay" is mentioned at Chana masala, so perhaps that should be nominated too.
I feel less strongly towards deletion now that I know about the Afghan term, which is the only location where the term is discussed on Wikipedia, and thereby should draw the target by default. It is acceptable to have the word "murgh" as it is used in murgh musallam, be of a different origin than the target of "murgh" as it is used in Afghan cuisine#Chicken, which even that lists it as "murgh-e", but still better than nothing at all.
Based on the evidence present to readers in Wikipedia mainspace, only Afghan cuisine could be the primary topic of "murgh", on the basis that it is the ONLY topic covered (individually) on Wikipedia (as is the case while I'm writing this). I'm also opposed to a hatnote, especially if this redirect points to Afghan cuisine. What would a hatnote even say? "Murgh redirects here. For the term used as Indian cuisine, please see chicken as food which contains none of the information you're looking for about 'Murgh as Indian cuisine'"? Maybe at this point, we could just disambiguate something? But it would be quite hard to justify disambiguating a list of food WP:PTMs, which such PTMs are not supposed to be listed on dabs, but I digress... Utopes (talk / cont) 02:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also re: the last sentence, this has been nominated since October 2nd. All the !keepers wanted to keep, regardless of it not being mentioned at Chicken as food, or the other suggestions where "murgh" was equally unmentioned. No evidence of usage for the Indian term of "murgh" has been aired beyond wiktionary. Now we're looking for Indian usages of "murgh" onwiki, only when the Afghan term has been brought to light? I've done a pretty hefty search myself and turned up nothing, but the best part is that if a mention is found for the Indian term later down the line, the redirect can be retargeted and/or recreated upon the revelation of such evidence, which does not even have to occur this week or this month. But in the meantime, we know what we know, and what I know is that it is mentioned on Afghan cuisine. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra — talk — c 20:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

[edit]

No mention of "Magical", or "Musical Adventure" at the target article. People looking for this individual show would not receive what they were looking for at the target.

The only mentions of "magical musical adventure" on all of Wikipedia are at David Joyner (actor) (which is unusable imo) and Barney (franchise), which is only mentioned once, in a sidebar. I'm not convinced this is the best option either, but at least better than no mentions (which is the status quo).

It might've been possible for me to retarget to Barney (franchise) without RfDing, as a means of getting it off the current target where its not mentioned, but I slightly prefer deletion of this redirect and/or recreation as an individual page, if that's even possible. Pointing as a redirect to Barney (franchise), with its only mention contained in the infobox, is not very ideal for this subject. All of the other Barney DtV home videos in the infobox seem to have their own standalone articles, so perhaps this one has some hope as well? Especially with the history behind this title, (even if it was supposably unreferenced since 2007, until being BLAR'd in early 2024). Utopes (talk / cont) 22:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Food

[edit]

Without a lowercase version redirecting somewhere else, a search for "burnt food" in lowercase goes to the TV version, which is a surprising result for someone (like me) hoping to find coverage of actual burnt food. Sdkb talk 22:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles for charring, cooking, and combustion, but none discusses the concept of food and the concept of burning together. I am surprised the concept of burning of food does not have an article yet. Ca talk to me! 05:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same; there wasn't even an item on Wikidata until I created one. Sdkb talk 03:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Burns

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Canales semicirculares anterior

[edit]

No affinity to Spanish, so delete, I think. Duckmather (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadenas y canales de televisión

[edit]

No affinity to Spanish, so delete, probably? Duckmather (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSSBuy

[edit]

There is no mention of "CSS" or "Buy" at the target article, much less "CSSBuy", much less any mention on all of Wikipedia (of which there is none). Utopes (talk / cont) 21:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Google tells me this is a specific freight forwarder, I don't know whether they are notable (30 seconds on Google only told me that the question can't be answered in that short a time) but without a mention anywhere that's not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruciverbalist

[edit]

No mention of this term at the target article. Is tagged as "an alternate name" and "an alternate language", but I'm doubtful of both of these claims, as the word is in English and has a definition of "someone who makes crossword puzzles". However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT, and with no mention of the definition or relation to the topic, this is not helpful as a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crop Protection (journal)

[edit]

There is no mention of such a journal at the target article. People who are looking for information on this journal would not find it at the target article. Tagged as having possibilities, so perhaps this journal could be a standalone page one day, but a blue-link to a page-without-mention is not the way, it seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The solution here is to mention the journal, not delete the redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the page should shape the existence of the redirects that point to the page, not the other way around. The existence of redirects does not necessarily mean we need to add content to substantiate their targets, although that is often a good solution for inspired users to skirt the need for an RfD. I have no opinion or desire relating to the inclusion of this material. The redirect creator was blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. And the page being discussed here (containing no valuable history; this page is a redirect), can always be recreated at no cost when someone adds material relating to this journal anywhere on Wikipedia. That doesn't have to be this week. Or this month. Or this year. But regardless of what point in time someone wants to discuss this journal on Wikipedia, this redirect will be wholly misleading in its current form, containing zero content for prospective searchers all the while. Redirects without a mention are a perennial problem, and from my searches on Wikipedia there's been no demonstrable evidence at this point in time that this one needs to exist, and can't just be recreated at a suitable date once suitable content has been added. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of that rant, you could simply have done this this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not do that, because I did not think this material should be added. This is not an article about a journal. Deletion IS preferable to me, and is the only reason either of us are speaking here; to not have a potential article about this topic be turned into a redirect towards one big mission statement. WP:REDYES, and "deleting redirects which lie to readers" is valid. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crean Hill, Ontario

[edit]

There is no mention of a "Crean Hill" at the target article. People using this search term are unaware of what and where this location has anything to do with Walden. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect exists because way back in the early days of Wikipedia there was a sloppy effort to create a minimal unsourced stub about every dot that could be found on a map of Ontario, with inadequate effort actually expended into researching what was or wasn't really at that dot — so we ended up with lots of articles about "communities" that turned out to really just be railway sidings or flag stops or fake copyright traps, many of which got summarily redirected to other related articles later on.
    In reality Crean Hill is a mine, not a community, per [39] — and while it is indeed in the Walden district of the city, even if we were to add more content about mines to the target article to justify a Crean Hill redirect this wouldn't be the correct title, as the comma-province format is for communities, not mines, so even if we do that the redirect would have to be moved to a different naming format anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Joint Theater Hospital

[edit]

There is no mention of "Craig" or "Theater" at the target article. This redirect is tagged as having possibilities, but such possibilities are closer to impossible if this redirect is a blue link and pointing at a title where the hospital is not discussed. Is mentioned on 3 pages: List of hospitals in Afghanistan, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing, and Advanced cardiac life support. Unsure if any of these are truly ideal, however, or if WP:REDYES would apply. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Luttrell

[edit]

No mention of "Cowboy" or "Luttrell" at the target article. Not a helpful redirect if we have no content on this supposed individual wrestler at the target article for the NWA. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger M. Cooke

[edit]

No history, no mention of such a person at the target article in the prose. The only aspect where this is mentioned is that Cooke apparently is one of the (many) authors of one source used in the references here. But no indication who this person is or how they are related to this subject. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conerve

[edit]

No mention of "conerve" at the target article. Possibly a portmanteau of "complex nerve"? But without a definition, is confusing. I'm getting mixed results when I type in "conerve" in search engines, which say something about a "conerve capsule"(?) (but are generally about being one letter off of "conserve"). In any case, without a mention, there is currently nothing suitable for incoming readers using this search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party (Kosovo)

[edit]

No mention of "communist" at the target article. A misleading redirect to a target where the party in question is not discussed. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Underscored

[edit]

There is no mention or discussion of an "underscored" variant of CNN. No mention of the word "underscore" anywhere at the target. Currently a misleading redirect, as people who would have otherwise wanted the general article for CNN, would've typed in "CNN". Utopes (talk / cont) 20:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"CNN Underscored" is CNN's affiliate marketing division. They rate and recommend various consumer products and receive a cut of the proceeds if people click through to buy them. See https://www.cnn.com/cnn-underscored. gnu57 21:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cursory search on the web and I don't think it is particularly notable. I suggest deletion since a mention is unlikely to be added Ca talk to me! 01:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enslaved Africans

[edit]

"Enslaved Africans" seems too broad to be redirecting to the Altantic slave trade alone. Either seems like it should be redirected to Slavery in Africa, to a disambiguation page or just deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzaface

[edit]

currently unmentioned in the target and with primary topichood completely usurped by a pizza tower character with the same name (good for him :3). was about to retarget there and call it a day, but per wikt:pizza face, there might be some other possible target(s). opinions? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at the target and at Pizza Tower.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

surprised no one mentioned draft:pizza face here. i'd say kick it to mainspace and then retarget both there cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fântânele River (Mureș)

[edit]

Was redirected under a verifiability concern years ago. Fântânele River doesn't list it. Can't find it on either OSM or Google maps. Used to also have Kutas-patak redirected to it, but that's a waterway somewhere else. Looks like this was the result of some sort of a confusion. Joy (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled another version Fântânele River (Mureş).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think a Romanian/Romanian-speaking editor would be helpful here to determine whether this is actually a thing or not. Probably the result of some confusion with Fântânele, Mureș; the online source indicates that Fântânele is the name of a valley, but I'm not sure whether that translates to it being the name of a river. J947 ‡ edits 23:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found this river on an old hiking map, where it's called "V. Fîntînele" (old spelling using "î" instead of "â", in full it would be "Valea Fântânele"). It flows into the Mureș at Lunca Bradului. The same river is called "Obcina Ferigelor" on this hiking map, and it is mentioned as such in this listing, page 265 and in this source, page 137. According to the latter source, it is 7 km long and has a basin area of 23 km2. This document refers to the river as "pârâul Obcina Ferigilor (pr. Fântânel)". But, "obcină" means "ridge" and "vale" means "valley", so these names could also refer to the wider area the river flows in. Concluding, there is evidence that this river exists, but it doesn't seem very notable. The Mureș (river) article mentions "Obcina Ferigerilor" as a right tributary, so we could add "Fântânel" or "Valea Fântânele" as an alternative name there, or (re)create an article about the river. Markussep Talk 08:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district

[edit]

Among the temples listed at the article, "Bhairabi" isn't one of them, and the section this redirect points to no longer exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ra'ad 1

[edit]

The more I research this redirect, the more confused I get. For starters, this redirect formerly targeted the article that is currently at Fajr-3 (artillery rocket), and did for the past six years. However, before that, this redirect targeted the article which it currently targets. However, to throw some more confusion into the mix, another similarly-titled article, Raad-1, exists. I may have figured out a better plan for what to do with this redirect by now if it were not for its incoming links; I am not clear what subject these links are meant to refer to. I'm thinking disambiguate is the way to go here, but I'm incredibly unclear what the base title should be for such a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at Raad-1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melonade

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; listed in Lucozade#Variants but there is also a more general Wiktionary entry at wikt:melonade. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Nose-pickers

[edit]

Little Evidence that this is a title that would be searched for. Only a reference to Nicola Sturgeon Picking her nose can be found using this search term. See no need for a redirect on that basis. Blethering Scot 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've merged these two related nominations that had an identical rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a very-long established nickname with lots of independent uses, e.g. [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], and plenty of others. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. BarntToust(Talk) 20:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added the other redirect I made of a variant of this name. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at target/WP:REDYES. I would expect someone searching for this term already knows what it refers to, but is looking for information about its usage specifically -- information we don't have. And on the off chance someone doesn't, they may be left wondering why they were led to the target in the first place. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 35. Possibly speedy as well. Maybe those sources are good, I don't know. But it is definitely not helpful for regular readers, because the only evidence that they might be at the right place is tucked into an October 2024 discussion in projectspace (this one). So readers are unable to verify any of that, or "easily check that information comes from a reliable source". On top of that, it's G10. No mention of "nose" or "picker" at the target. The example textualized at the WP:G10 policy page clarifies that "mentioned attacks are valid". It's never been the case where the opposite is acceptable (unmentioned attacks). Delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, tag as non-neutral. This is a perjorative name that isn't clearly linked to its target at first glance, but as Thryduulf states has a long history of being used. I disagree with the IP's assertion that someone searching for this topic would 100% be trying to find out more info about what the name comes from-- they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to". But we have no information to help them determine that, or why it does. Wikipedia is not Google. If an ignorant reader puts in in the search bar, they'll have no idea why they landed where they did, with no information about the phrase they were looking for. It's misleading and a waste of a reader's time. Therefore, deletion is the only reasonable action here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The readers would probably notice that the acronyms of both are the same. Ca talk to me! 06:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, maybe not. And even if they do, they'd have no idea why they were redirected. Is this a common term? Is it a well known thing that someone used once with some encyclopedic history? Is it vandalism? The ignorant reader has no way of knowing, because we have no information about it. Wikipedia is not Google -- it's not our job to tell people what the term refers to without context; it's our job to provide the context. And if we have none, then the redirect shouldn't exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf. Sure, some readers aren't going to realise the implication of this redirect's existence (that this redirect is a term used to refer to the SNP). But if this is deleted, no readers will realise that implication. J947 ‡ edits 23:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_19#I'm_sorry_Dave. I'm not convinced that deletion was the right outcome there, but this redirect should suffer the same fate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Fortunately we are not bound by consensus so when a previous discussion gets it wrong we are not required to repeat it. This is a very notable quote, indeed it's the most notable quote from the entire work. There are potential arguments that "I'm sorry Dave" could be ambiguous (I've not looked to see if it is in practice), but for the whole quote every single one of the hits on the fist 8 pages of Google for I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that -Wikipedia -Wikiquote (not even the exact phrase) are about the film, about the line from the film, or referencing (almost always explicitly) the line from the film. People are using this redirect (sometimes it's getting multiple times per day) and the target is unambiguous, so deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thryduulf. Even if it's not explicitly listed off in the actual articles, this is, as Thryduulf notes, the most notable quote in the entire work, a quote near synonymous with the character of HAL 9000 itself. Removing this redirect or directing it anywhere else would do a huge disservice to the readership. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Lunamann... from April, during the previous discussion. What I'm reading in THIS discussion, based on what has been stated so far, is baseless assertions of "having highest notability" with zero particular sources or evidence behind the claim "it's the most notable quote from the entire work". "Synonymous with the entire character itself", no less!! According to the information listed on our Wikipedia pages, Hal 9000 and its reliable sources, it's not. There are 8-10 quotes at the target that are namedropped, WITH sources and enough presumed importance to be featured in prose, but none are this one, and none of those have redirects.
Is it really the most notable quote from the entire work? Genuinely excellent! This content could improve the encyclopedia. So there MUST be some way to verify this claim from a reliable source? If I were to type this in as a significant quote, for starters I would certainly want to read about the quote SPECIFICALLY, because that's exactly the search term I typed in, but such an article does not exist at this time. Therefore, we'd want to encourage readers to add material which we don't have, per WP:REDLINK. For a standalone article, a structure like Our princess is in another castle! could work? We've definitely done it before. But maybe this quote-topic can be covered on a different page, and not have to be standalone if the sources aren't up to par. If I had to pick a character to end up at, I would personally want to go to an article about "Dave" (because that is the name I purposely typed). I did not type in HAL 9000. If I wanted HAL 9000, I (and anyone who wanted to find HAL 9000) would've typed in "HAL 9000", which I deliberately be avoiding by typing in 9 words, none of which contain "HAL" and none of which contain "9000". The search term is, for all tenses and purposes, a totally separate topic. A quote. Not a character. And nothing exists for it on Wikipedia, it seems.
If this quote is so important as it is claimed here, it seems like it'd be a homerun out-of-the-park slam dunk to have SOMEthing, SOMEwhere, related to this quote. But, to the best of my understanding, we do not, anywhere. We didn't in January. We didn't in April. And nearly a year later, not in October either. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from the history, given that not even Lunamann wanted to save this in April, is that this quote must not be worthwhile! (Obviously this is not true, because the quote IS "important" and likely notable, possibly even reaching standalone notability! But Wikipedia is not trying to "right the wrongs" of a lack of coverage. We can only report on, and redirect based on the material that is contained here on Wikipedia. Not what we want it to contain. This is regardless if it's "important", but not mentioned yet.) The way to indicate that there is a gap in Wikipedia coverage to be filled, is a redlink. This redirect has zero valuable history. It can ALWAYS be recreated once someone feels it necessary to discuss this potentially notable quote on the biggest online encyclopedia. Which will certainly happen eventually, especially so if the "quote is synonymous with the target itself". But doesn't need to happen now. We are in WP:NORUSH to finish it. And in the meantime, people who search for a quote, and don't end up at material directly related to their search term, will certainly be misled, as Wikipedia is not, does not function as, or advertise as a "type in a quote and get the character who said it without any mention of the search term you used because it's not 'important' enough to be covered at the target page you ended up at" service. The content of the article dictates the redirects that should exist. Not the other way around. Recreate the redirect once a sourced mention is added, somewhere on Wikipedia, because there are none right now... besides one.
Alternatively, retarget to Love and Rocket where the quote is discussed, and HAL 9000 is readily linked. But my guess is that people would probably not want that. Welp. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FOARP's retarget? Pinging @Pppery, Thryduulf, Lunamann, Utopes, Clarityfiend, A7V2, and Fieari:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE: FOARP's alternate target: I'm not actually certain. I don't think people will be looking for this info if they search this prompt, however, it's easy to get from here to 2001: A Space Odyssey and/or HAL 9000, so perhaps this could be a good target? I'm going to keep my vote where it is, but I won't be terribly upset if it ends up there instead. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This quote from the character is iconic enough to be a synecdoche of the character, and the identification of references to the quotation in secondary sources cements that. As for whether it needs to be in the body text, I'm persuaded by J947's observation that the redirect even on its own will answer the reader's most probable question ("where is this from?"). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a likely search term, and if the only object is that it's not mentionned in the article, then the solution to that is to mention it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linjian

[edit]

The name, which is that of a town in the Chinese province of Shandong, is being redirected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson with same name. Either it should be deleted or be redirected to the target page I have given.Toadboy123 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The first option to think was disambiguate per 65. However, note that the town in Zijin, Guangdong, China, is spelt Linjiang, and another town in Huazhou, Maoming, Guangdong, China (zh:林尘镇) was mistakenly written as Linjian in the list of township-level divisions of Guangdong, but it is actually pronounced Linchen (see also: Huazhou, Guangdong#Towns), which I have corrected, so it is not an entry. Therefore, there are only two valid entries (Linjian as the town in Shandong, and Chen Linjian the basketball player) with zero entries having the actual article, which makes delete the best choice, unless at least one of the article is created. Sun8908 Talk 16:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ain't I a stinker? (remaining bundle)

[edit]

"Stinker" does not appear at the target article for Bugs Bunny. However, it is mentioned at The Abbott and Costello Show and several other articles including List of Saturday TV Funhouse segments, and WikiQuote at q:Hare Force. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I feel that more people know this phrase from Bugs Bunny than from Abbot and Costello. I it a plausible search term, but I'm unsure whether we should drill down and really determine if there's a WP:PTOPIC, or if we should disambiguate. I don't think deletion is a good idea due to the plausibility of someone searching for this very famous phrase. If a PTOPIC is found, hatnoting may be appropriate. Fieari (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would boil down to "where will readers receive the information most pertinent to their search term and have their questions be answered", and that is not the case at Bugs Bunny with zero mention. Yet the phrase "Ain't I a stinker" has like 6 mentions across Wikipedia, all of which might possibly be valid and could draw the target, but the fine details can be ascertained through this RfD. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is not relevant on the Abbott and Costello TV series page, because it was never used in the series. A better place might be on the A&C radio show page, or the Abbott and Costello bio page. I do think it is a minor phrase that wasn't readily associated with the team.Plummer (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to d-d-d-d-duel

[edit]

There is no mention of "d-d" at the target article. Per the RCATs, this is apparently a related meme quotation, yet does not appear anywhere as written within the article. People looking for Yu-Gi-Oh! can reach the subject by typing Yugioh. Hyphenating between all the d's, just to reach an undiscussed meme subject, does not seem particularly useful or helpful here. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful to whom exactly? Personally, I search for a meme expecting information about a meme. 90% of people familiar with the meme know it's from Yu-Gi-Oh (or seems to be that way from [49], where it is discussed on KnowYourMeme). At the very least, readers expect to read about the thing they searched about. So readers get here thinking "oh so the meme is discussed on this page, great!" One then spends the next 50 thousand bytes searching and searching and nope, zero context, zero benefit. We don't need a redirect for "it's time to d-d-d-d-duel" if all it's going to imply is "this term is synonymous with the entire concept of the Yu-Gi-Oh! general topic article, with no specific section or anchor implied."
Memes are novel. I'm not surprised that people WANT to learn about it here, yet still not useful as a 1-to-1 redirect as it currently leaves people lost on a page without any information for their meme search term, and no mention of "meme" at Yu-Gi-Oh. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. This isn't simply a meme-- it's a direct quotation from the original opening sequence for the English dub of this specific anime, with most meme-ification of this quote simply extending the "d-d-d-d-d-d" stuttery part, or otherwise playing around with it and the Yu-Gi-Oh anime's characters in general. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's a meme then. I'm well aware of the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence in question, and the associated meme and its derivations. It's clearly not a "direct quotation", else this text (hyphens and all) would appear in the episode transcript here: [50]. Regardless, thank you for suggesting a more-related option. But it's still an unmentioned meme. How does this have any bearing on the likelihood of typing a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by "uel"? And all to end up at an article for the series where the meme being sought isn't mentioned, nor any of the meme-spellings? Even in the anime and the video you linked, they stutter like 9 times, so even that aspect isn't accurate within this redirect, and none of It's time to duel, It's time to d-duel, It's time to d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-duel (is nommed), It's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel exist, or It's time to dduel, It's time to ddduel, It's time to dddduel, or It's time to ddddduel for that matter. Past precedent has indicated that random hyphens inserted into words is not useful, obfuscates the terms that are actually spoken, and makes searches impractical. And at least for these precedent discussions, they were for quotes which appeared at the target, iirc (in an unmodified/natural state that is, I think). The quote is officially "it's time to duel". Anything beyond that, makes it a meme/meme version. Someone committing to the 5 ds/4 hyphens combination is deliberately typing in a meme into the search engine, so if maintained, the content should reflect that. Neither the real version nor any of the meme variations are covered at the new suggested target either, and Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!, btw. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding this hyphens, Hyphenation Expert; imo you have definitely earned the title of "expert in hyphenation" for this one 😌 lol.
    For that redirect, the title stutters 8 times, which that number happens to have a bit more basis in reality, compared to this one which stutters 4. (Side note, the edit summary for that redirect is... certainly interesting...). I'm hesitant to bundle these though, as the redirect you found here at least sounds a bit closer to what occurs in the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence, with the ~correct amount of 8 or 9 ds, so slightly more plausible. There may be a case for deletion there (no other du-du-dus exist), but I think the smaller scope and just one redirect here is fine for now. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiff & Tuff (Chara(c)ters)

[edit]

These redirects began their history in 2008 as a page about the characters (see the last version before redirection here) until it was turned into a redirect over three days later for not citing any sources and the characters not being notable enough for their own article. Then, almost three years later, the first (misspelled) redirect was moved to the second (correctly spelled) one's title to make an "orthographic correction." I'm not sure the current target in general is the best one for the page, so I suggest we either delete them (especially the misspelled one) or refine them to the "Characters" section (where the characters are mentioned and explained in some detail). Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 06:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Airport

[edit]

I PROD'd the article about this airport on the basis that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Another user made a good-faith effort to preserve the content by merging it with Kaufman, Texas, article, but the user did not realize that the airport has been removed from FAA records because it has presumably closed permanently (which, in 20/20 hindsight, I should have mentioned in the PROD nomination). Thus, the airport article has been replaced with a redirect targeting an article about a town, but the content discussing the airport should presumably be removed from the target article for the same reasons I outline above. I suggest that both the content and the redirect should be deleted. Carguychris (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Carguychris: As long as the content is there, the redirect is appropriate. If the content is removed from the target article (which is not something RfD can or should compel, but something you can do yourself per WP:BRD), then the correct thing to do is to restore the article and send it to AfD. If you think the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then I'd recommend the latter course of action (in which case you can close this as withdrawn). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've axed the airport content from the target article, but restoring the previous Hall Airport article solely to AfD it seems excessive. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:RECENTISM Wikipedia is not just about what is there right now, history is also a part of Wikipedia. So if there was an airport there, why would it not be appropriate to be part of the town's history? Just as we keep around Tempelhof Airport article after it closed, then we should have history sections for towns, mentioning significant landmarks that no longer exist.-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tempelhof clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Hall Airport was a privately owned 2,500' grass strip with no significant facilities. Most small private airstrips shouldn't have Wikipedia articles per WP:ROTM, but many of them do because they're listed in convenient online aviation databases. Carguychris (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the anon here. My preference would be to restore the content to the article and keep the redirect. I agree that this airport isn't notable enough for its own article. I don't agree it isn't worth a mention at the town article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore content per Presidentman. Being closed doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all. A7V2 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 attacks

[edit]

These redirects assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001, which is false. I suggest retargeting them to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. As for 2001 attacks, it can probably be downright deleted by RC,IR as it was made less than a year ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. There were some similar redirects rfed earlier this year but I forget which. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, especially if they don't know beforehand what title we gave it. That's just a very natural way to search for it. Also, readers looking for 9/11 will easily find it at that target page, while the opposite is way less obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last year, 2001 terrorist attacks got 29 views, which is good enough for me. Even if nobody is using it (and that's not the case), that's not a reason to delete per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra (u — c) 14:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra It's not about deleting the redirects, it's about retargeting them to more appropriate targets, as I suggested when I first started this RfD 2 weeks ago. Besides, I only suggested deleting the more recent redirect as a last resort. Aside from that, I never suggested deleting the older redirect created back in 2006, just retargeting it to a more plausible target. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Then I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. How do low pageviews point to retargeting to List of terrorist incidents in 2001? Cremastra (u — c) 16:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra Because barely anyone uses the redirects for going to the 9/11 page (given the pageviews). Because people are more likely to search for 9/11 instead of either of the 2 redirects, it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents (given the massive ambiguity of "2001 attacks" compared to 9/11, see Chaotic Enby and Steel1943's points), in spite of the points of 9/11 being the most notable of all the other 2001 incidents. PTOPIC isn't exactly clear if people don't search for the 2 redirects and instead search for 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeaHaircutSoilReplace If "barely anyone" uses the redirects for navigating to 9/11, I don't see how the pageviews will increase if we retarget. I still don't entirely follow your train of thought here. People do use these redirects, and since 9/11 is the PTOPIC here, I simply don't see how retargetting to a more general target is the most helpful option for readers here. Like CFA and Tavix said, it's the primary topic and redirects are cheap. You say it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents, but I'm still struggling to understand why it makes sense. You seem to be assuming that readers don't use these redirects because (in your view) they point to the wrong place, and that by retargetting to a more general target, pageviews will increase. Readers aren't looking at RfD. They aren't going to spread the word that the redirect got retargetted. Cremastra (u — c) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think 9/11 will be the primary topic, and I never will for that matter. As said earlier, "2001 attacks" is far too vague for anything, including 9/11, to qualify for its primary topic. I'm not going to deal with this any longer. By the way, WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to apply here. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they are editing disruptively. C F A 💬 23:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, sure. But I don't think accusing me of sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is, in fact, very productive here. But I digress. The searches do show it's the primary topic for me, but PTOPIC is something reasonable people can disagree on; it's often hard to find. I still don't understand what pageviews have to do with anything, but I'm happy to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the horse be. This discussion is probably due for a close anyway. Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of City 17

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Obstipation

[edit]

Term not mentioned nor defined at target. Even though it is similar to "Constipation", it appears to be an entirely different and more severe condition. CycloneYoris talk! 09:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

from some quick looking, i haven't found a good enough target for that aside from maybe bowel obstruction (where it's also unmentioned). would soft redirecting to wikt:obstipation work for now? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note that this term "obstipation" is very, very rare compared to acute bowel obstruction (which seems to be the "modern" equivalent term, but that is my impression only and not a reliable source).
The dictionary definitions gave along the lines of "severe + acute constipation", and it even sounds like a medical emergency. Therefore on the basis of those dictionary definitions I changed the link from obstructed defecation which was imo inappropriate (the latter is a chronic condition, not a medical emergency) and also unsourced. Moribundum (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 19:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VB

[edit]

A shortcut redirect from Wikipedia namespace to a navigational template doesn't make much sense. This should probably be retargeted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball. ✗plicit 14:49, 8 October 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! 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should be discussed separately, as Template:Vb has quite a bit of transclusions. ✗plicit 13:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget, take two
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonam Maskar

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Uncle Cosmo

[edit]

still not the biggest columbohead out there, but from a couple days of looking around, i haven't found any relation between this name and columbo (or columbo). is this something from later episodes that just hasn't been mentioned anywhere yet, or...? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else able to find any sign of this anywhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to generations: the legacy, since it's the best we got cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IBP

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Back to Gecko

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Picric acid (homeopathic remedy)

[edit]

Delete the existence of the redirect suggests that picric acid, or something called picric acid, is a homeopathic preparation, and no evidence for that is adduced at the target page. Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC) (Further comment: This page was originally an article, but that was back in 2008 — I don't think we need to take it to AfD now, do we?) --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget it and all other homeopathy-related redirects to placeboKeep, readd reference, find and add new source. It seems this very incomplete-looking list used to be a lot longer in the past; around 2019, it went from around 14k bytes to around 3k bytes, with two edits in particular excising the most amount of data, with the reason given being unreliable sources and/or sources that got removed from the Internet. From these older pieces we do find a very helpful search term-- that the name of a homeopathic preparation based on picric acid would be "Picricum acidum", which can be found in other sources-- and can also be found for sale. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a pretty good point.... --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ASTRO

[edit]

Delete: Incorrect and confusing redirect that declares this WP:PROJPAGE essay to be a part of the WP:MOS guidelines. (The page's misnaming with "/Manual of Style" instead of "/Style advice" is being addressed separately in an RM.) Deleting this shortcut will be consistent with prior deletions of "MOS:" namespace (formerly pseudo-namespace) shortcuts to wikiproject essays and the like. The potential for mischief with such shortcuts is high, because editors who encounter them "cited" in talk-page arguments are highly likely to trust that they are MoS guidelines with the authority of community consensus acceptance, instead of being pre-WP:PROPOSAL essays of recent coinage by a trivial number of editors with nearly no community input. The advice in the page might even be good, but it is not (yet?) part of MoS and should not masquerade as one. I've created a new WP:ASTROSTYLE shortcut for this page (and it seems to be the only one aside from MOS:ASTRO.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotolerance

[edit]

No mention of "tolerance" or "chaotolerance" at the target article. Seemingly a portmanteau of "chaos tolerance", but without an explanation at the target page, people using this search term would be confused as to what it means or how it relates to the subject, with no description or definition to warrant the redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaFile

[edit]

No mention of "file" at the target article. Was created with the edit summary "website of", but this is not accounted for at the target. The website that IS given, for Asia Society, is asiasociety.org. Without any context this redirect is unhelpful, and misleading as people who search this term are not given the context as to why they ended up here. Maybe a reader was looking for a file about China? No answers, currently. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaFile is an online magazine published by the Asia Society. (See https://asiasociety.org/center-us-china-relations/chinafile) W9793 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine is mentioned in the lead now, but it would probably help to provide further context later on in the article too, maybe under Functions. Reconrabbit 22:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chir'daki

[edit]

No mention of "chir" or "daki" at the target article. The page has history. Still is an unhelpful and misleading redirect to a page where the subject is not discussed. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Paige Chivers

[edit]

No mention of "Paige" or "Chivers" at the target article. The creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chlaenius atratulus and Chlaenius azureulus

[edit]

Azureulus and atratulus not mentioned at the list of chlaenius species, where they should be red links anyway if they exist, in the absence of dedicated article content. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cozy horror

[edit]

Misleading – not mentioned at target. Cremastra (u — c) 00:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chlaenius anchomenoides and some

[edit]

We do not have a dedicated article for these species. People who type in chlaenius callichloris (and others), already know the genus is chlaenius. Not useful as a redirect to the species list, because we have zero dedicated content. Delete per WP:REDYES. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx

[edit]

This is an R from merge. The history of this wallet ID is useful to preserve, but as a search term and as a helpful redirect it is neither of these things, especially so as the wallet ID is not mentioned at the subject, so there is zero indication what this string of 34 characters could possibly mean in relationship to the subject. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

[edit]

Wikipedia:ZNB

[edit]

ZNB is not the country code for Zambia. And if it was, it still would not be good practice to redirect such a title to portal space. Wikipedia redirects generally go to Wikipedia titles where they apply. And for essentially all of my experience, there are country WikiProjects in WP space that would benefit more from this than a portal ever would. Such as WP:ZM. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Chalmers

[edit]

Name not mentioned at target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Comment the previous RfD noted that the McConnohie was credited as Geoffrey Chalmers and that this was mentioned in the article. Mention was hidden by an IP editor in June 2021 with the comment "I'm hiding this source until verified". The information was sourced to [55] but the current version of that page doesn't include the name (I've not investigated whether it ever did). Googling "Michael McConnohie" "Geoffrey Chalmers" finds a lot of hits making the same connection, but every site is either unreliable (IMDB, wikis) or one I have no idea of the reliability of. This needs attention from someone familiar with sourcing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to take a dive into the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: semi-involved relist to close the 7 October log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 23:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbeitsamt

[edit]

The term is never mentioned in the target article. Perhaps it should be retargeted to Arbeitsamt in occupied Poland or be a disambig? It is also not mentioned in de version of the target article, de:Arbeitsamt does not have a wiki article yet (it seems related to the Public employment service) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 23:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S-compact space

[edit]

This seems to be a different concept that is not described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is not a concept at all. If you look at the history for the S-compact space page, it was created by a bot in 2008, presumably because this bot automatically created such redirects because Σ-compact space also redirects to σ-compact space, and the bot converted the Greek letter to a Latin letter. Note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/S-compact_space that there are no Wikipedia articles making use of this redirect. It would also be very confusing for anyone to use "S-compact space" with the meaning of "sigma-compact". No mathematician would understand what it means, as it has no meaning. Since "σ-compact space" already has a variety of redirects from many other names that make sense and without using Greek letters for those who have difficulty typing those (like "Sigma-compact space", etc), it seems to me that the best course of action is to delete the redirect "S-compact space". PatrickR2 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe these redirects are typing aids. It's an error to imagine that someone wanting to access Σ-compact space will necessarily first think of Sigma-compact space. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep [as a typing aid] [Maybe not significant but on the other hand, supporting dab] S-compact is used as a short form of strong locally compact, as if it is a standard notation, in Gompa, Raghu R. “What is ‘Locally Compact’?” Pi Mu Epsilon Journal 9, no. 6 (1992): 390–92. [56] It is used to describe certain bitopologial spaces in an apparently unconnected way here. It also seems to have a different use in fuzzy measure theory. However unless we cover these uses on Wikipedia (we don't as far as I can tell) this is a valid redirect. If we did at this page we should use a hatnote for sigma, otherwise a dab page might be in order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Note that the article by Raghu is pretty idiosyncratic. Any undergraduate belonging (having belonged?) to the society can publish some writing there with their own notation. That does not make such notation notable. Pi Mu Epsilon Jouornal is not a peer reviewed journal and thus is not a reliable source. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Apart from the fact that bringing it up would seem to be an argument to retarget to Locally compact space#Formal definition (to which I just redirected strongly locally compact), not to keep.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that bringing up those other cases supports dab or retarget. However I did not consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate the strength of that support. For example I found another case of "S-compact space" where S is merely a place-holder, which I could discard. I didn't want to repeat myself, but I have added my motivation for keep to my !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    @1234qwer1234qwer4 Maybe a little off topic here, but why did you create a redirect from strongly locally compact, just based on the existence of an article in an undergraduate journal using that terminology? It is not because a random person introduced that terminology in a random journal that it should belong in Wikipedia. Additions to Wikipedia, at least for mathematics, should be based on notable facts. How do you justify this terminology is "notable"? Leaving this in wikipedia is also encouraging people to start using this non-notable terminology :-( PatrickR2 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PatrickR2, I based my redirect on the inclusion (not added by me) of the phrase in the Locally compact space article (as well as a web search confirming the usage of this phrase – I barely ever create redirects just based on something singular). The article, in turn, cites Steen & Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology, which is convincing enough to me to leave it there. I did not realise that article also cited the Pi Mu Epsilon article until now; it likely shouldn't, but it appears to be only used as a source for the logical relations and not any terminology. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep creating these links "just in case". This is a misguided approach. If and when someone needs to link to 'locally compact" from "strongly locally compact", they can create the redirect at that time. It helps no one to create all these redirects if no one is going to use them. This is just gnome work gone overboard. Sorry for the rant, but it's not the first time ... PatrickR2 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I've found at least two more, different "S-compact"s just looking through the arXiv, all fairly obscure, and none of which seem to have any existing coverage on Wikipedia (that I can find, at least). Thus any target would be misleading, including substituting "S" for sigma. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usurper King

[edit]

There have been plenty of real historical figures described as usurper kings, including in some Wikipedia articles. This redirect is therefore too ambiguous to target to this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not even an old tiktok meme like great king of evil (though i'd nominate that one too, as the meme invariably includes his name). off the top of my head, the wasp king (as in the guy from bug fables) also fits the bill cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N3rd

[edit]

Probably ought to be a dab page as can conceivably refer to White N3rd of LuvBug or N3RD Street (which really ought to be at N3rd Street). Am I missing something? Launchballer 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am not sure how this eneded up being a redirect from n3rd street, my bad! It should be it's own standalone musician page for N3rd (he changed his name from White N3rd and yes is a part of Luv Bug who have their own wiki page already) Tommonovisio (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi is it possible to assist me please, so that the N3rd page can exist but we fix the issue where it became a redirect? @Launchballer Tommonovisio (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Tommonovisio:. I can advise that I redirected N3rd back to LuvBug as none of its claims were backed up by reliable sources; after removing them, the article did not assert why he was important or significant. If you can provide sources to back up your claims, feel free to try again, but consider starting in draftspace (i.e. Draft:N3RD).--Launchballer 00:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks I will try to find references to verify the accolades/claims! Tricky thing is that he mostly writes tunes for other people which have had success, more so than his own releases.. Tommonovisio (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate? Or retarget to Nerd (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the dab per the ip editor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a hatnote to LuvBug if you want. The street is pretty clearly primary here (since it actually has its own page), and there's only WP:ONEOTHER possible target, so this is the ideal setup. No one searching 'n3rd' specifically is going to be looking for any other extant uses of the term. A second hatnote to the dab page would probably be overkill, but still preferable to redirecting there outright. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, this is a little more complicated than I first realized...I missed some of the history and the repeated recreation/deletion of White N3rd. But I still think the street is primary here. And with only two possible targets, one primary, redirecting to the big dab page would be very unhelpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isometry (mathematics)

[edit]

Since the primary topic Isometry is already a mathematical topic, I don't think this should be a redirect to the disambiguation page (which also seems to consist of a lot of WP:PTMs). (Note that there is also Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation); not sure how much precedent there is for such redirects.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quran Afghanistan

[edit]

Very general term; this Quran doesn't come up in the entire first page of google results. I'm not seeing a primary topic here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Quran in Afghanistan . 19:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
I've added that to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 11:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic WP:XY. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an XY situation at all, as the redirect only refers to a single topic. It may or may not be vague or ambiguous, but it isn't XY. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too ambiguous; there are probably hundreds of Qurans in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searches for "Quran in Afghanistan" return mostly the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, followed by some assorted social media slosh. My leaning is delete because this ambiguous, but I'm willing to try drafting a DAB page. Cremastra (u — c) 14:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done at Quran in Afghanistan. Cremastra (u — c) 20:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on disambig?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snapseed 2.22.412829873

[edit]

It would make sense to have a redirect for a particularly important software version, but that version (and its importance) would need to be mentioned in the target page. WP:NOTCHANGELOG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also would likely want to go to a section header / anchor, instead of simply Snapseed. In any case, delete as per WP:RETURNTORED; there may be important info on this topic, but it's not here, and a redlink is the best way to convey that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello nice people ;)... i made it probably when i saw EXIF and see Software used, so i click and reroute to what we had (the article) and probaly that is it. Of course i wont bother if this is changed. Normally i use reroute for cameras in EXIF (EXIF is "cameras fingerprint"). Reroute=redirect --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spacelike vector

[edit]

These should point at the same target, but it seems like Causal structure is the most appropriate option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone endorse the IP editor's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tick tock tick tock tick tock

[edit]

I'm not sure these are correctly targeted. Perhaps Tick tock would be a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not keep this... lyric? Simply guessing because I have zero clue what this is. As it so happens, there is no context for this redirect's title at the target page, and if I was looking for clock noises I would probably want something related to that? Or at least, somewhere where it receives a mention on Wikipedia so that I know I've made it to the right place. There is no information at tick tock about a thrice-repetition, so I think I lean towards deletion. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. confusing and ambiguous, could just as easily refer to a track from pizza tower, antonblast, wario land 4, tick tock clock in super mario 64, the tick tock dab and a lot of stuff under it... really, nothing seems to have any strong affinity for repeating it exactly 3 times cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farage riots

[edit]

Negative redirect not mentioned in the target article. A quick Google search doesn't seem to show that is a common term. Borderline speedy deletion candidate. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My quick google search showed that this is very much a term that has been used in reliable sources [57][58][59][60] and sources that may or may not be reliable (I've not looked in detail) [61][62][63][64] (and also a use in The London Economic titled "Farage Riots trend as Reform UK kick off conference" the filter won't let me link to). Many of the uses in both sets are quoting Nigel Farage complaining about others using the term, some of them attribute the term to him. I'm not sure whether a mention of the term at either the rioting article or Nigel Farage's article is due, but it's not a suggestion that can be dismissed out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the due diligence, but I won't withdraw my nomination unless it is mentioned in the article... non-neutral redirects without sources seems like a BLP violation, doesn't it? -1ctinus📝🗨 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Newsthump is a satirical website, but the first four sources seem reliable (the Instagram link being a broadcast interview on LBC radio). I've also heard this phrase being used on podcasts and in the media, and the stats[65] seem to show people are searching for it, I think it's a keep. Orange sticker (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good day. I created this redirect not out of agreement with the term, but rather because I had seen the name used to refer to these riots frequently at the time on social medias and on some reliable (and less reliable) news sites, as Thryduulf found. The term is certainly biased, I do admit that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies around redirects. My rationale was simply to help readers who may know these riots as the Farage Riots to get to the appropriate article.
Anyway, I understand your reason for proposing deletion. I personally do not have enough knowledge on the subject of the article to integrate mention of this nickname in a well written manner. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, thank you for editing! Mittzy (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target or to Nigel Farage. Notified of this discussion at the two pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to go add a mention on the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no need to add a mention. If someone wants to do so, at ANY point in time within the next 5 months to 5 years, just recreate the redirect when that happens. It continues to be misleading in the meantime. Zero valuable history here. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texvc

[edit]

Legacy cruft does not warrant a double soft redirect from mainspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget if a mention is added. The page was moved (without redirect) to project space in 2010 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texvc reached no consensus. The redirect was recreated "since Meta has many links to this page, and I don't have access to a bot to correct Meta". The redirect gets over 400 hits a year with only a handful of days with zero visits, and I can find no evidence of anything else with this name so it's clearly providing value to those using it. I don't know how to filter out all the manpages, package lists, forum questions and programming snippets, etc. to assess whether this is notable enough for a mention somewhere, but someone who does know how to do that should do that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since there is no page in projectspace, it is a redirect to an offsite location, this is therefore a redirect to an offsite location, and not the proper use of a redirect. The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary. Per Thryduulf's stats, WP:REDLINK to allow creation of an article, should it prove notable. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary this is incorrect. While Wiktionary is the most common target of soft redirects in the mainspace it is not the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: unambiguous. Cremastra (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is all over the place - any more support for TechnoSquirrel69's compromise suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism (arts)

[edit]

The most common use of symbolism in association with the arts is when a concrete element within a visual, literary, or other work of art is used to represent an abstract idea. Currently, the landing place for that type of symbolism seems to simply be Symbol (15 October UPDATE: I've now made a new landing page for this exact concept: Artistic symbol). "Symbolism" as a specific 19th-century social movement is a much more narrow and obscure usage. Similarly worded redirects (namely Symbolism (art) and Symbolism in art) also ought to be redirected accordingly. Wolfdog (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog I'm not certain I understand your nomination. Are you saying that Symbolism (arts) is targetting the correct place, but Symbolism (art) and Symbolism in art should be retargetted to match? Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time using RFD, so excuse my inexperience but, no, I'm saying it's targeting the wrong place. It's currently targeting Symbolism (movement). Wolfdog (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the target should be the current target of the redirect. I'll fix it and add the other redirects you mentioned to the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Ok duh, haha, thanks. Should I clear out our above discussion? Wolfdog (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it's useful context. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellated

[edit]

"cancellated" means two different things, neither primarily associated with bones. "cancellous" is apparently more primarily associated with bones though, so that's neato cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India women's national futsal team

[edit]

Target is for the men's team with no mention of the women's team. Should be left as a redirect to encourage creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda 2016

[edit]

Breath of the Wild did not release in 2016, it released in 2017. Also, Twilight Princess HD, another Zelda game, did come out in 2016! However, I think this is an unlikely term to refer to either game, so I think we should just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could refer to anything on the Zelda disambiguation page which occurred in 2016. Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - the game was scheduled/estimated to be released in 2016 for quite some time during its development, and I dont think anyone would realistically refer to a then-decade old port as "Zelda 2016", so I don't really agree with the nomination. That said, I also don't really think, in this day and age, that it's likely for someone not know the name Breath of the Wild, but know to search by its initially planned release year, so I'm not really sure if it's realistic function either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to imdb there is a 2016 film named "Zelda" but it's not listed on the Zelda (disambiguation) page so I'm not sure if we have content, it also seems to be a common way of referring to a set of trading cards (e.g. [66]) released that year but again I'm uncertain if we have content. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese opera

[edit]

Suggest deletion: the target article does not mention opera. The topic of Japanese opera is likely a notable one and this should be red link per WP:RED Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As-is, this redirect is incredibly confusing: it brings the unsuspecting reader to a page that says nothing about opera. That said, what did the searcher expect to find? An opera company or theater in Japan? An opera written by a Japanese composer? A native Japanese opera-like theater genre? Garbage in, garbage out, we should not answer an open-ended question with a random response or even a collection of these. Викидим (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what they would have expected to find is presumably something fitting in Category:Opera by country. So maybe garbage out, but definitely not garbage in. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that this interpretation is the most plausible. Alas, we do not have a text similar to French Opera. Викидим (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I honestly expect that someone typing this into search is looking for Kabuki; I think the correct "answer" is Noh; and I think an "Opera by country"-type result would be the one expected by most wikipedia editors, but we don't have it. So I come down to "let people use the search engine". -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But look at what the search engine currently gives (after this redirect, of course): [67] Cremastra — talk — c 20:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • enwiki search results show plenty of entries for Japanese opera singers, composers and operas. Kurofune (opera) says it is regarded as the first Japanese opera. There is no single article that conveys information on the term, but it's ideal to have this as an article or an article section. Delete. Jay 💬 16:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above to encourage creation. In this instance, an effective dab page would probably morph into a BCA that would share some similarities an article on this topic. J947 ‡ edits 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To bundle Opera of Japan.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007-06-17 (June 17, 2007)

[edit]

Redundant disambiguation. Cremastra (u — c) 20:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete (remove from existence) per nom (nominator). also in two (2) different (unequal) formats (ymd and mdy), which hurts (inflicts pain on) me cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yoshi series bosses

[edit]

No boss characters appearing in the Yoshi series (other than Bowser) are mentioned on this list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. pay no mind the first one's history, there's no sauce there cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mrinal Chauhan

[edit]

No point in this redirect, there is no coverage about him in this page. should be deleted until an actual article is made. Sports2021 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no mention. Chauhan has one gold medal in Sulaymaniyah 2022 Asia Cup leg 2 in
Iraq.[68] Ca talk to me! 06:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They are mentioned as a competitor/medallist in multiple articles but none have enough content to anchor a redirect and none are obviously better than any of the others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy speakers of the Goa Legislative Assembly

[edit]

No list of deputy speakers at any of the targets. Similar open RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#List of leaders of the opposition in the Goa Legislative Assembly. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppy the Frog

[edit]

Appears to be a similar but unrelated meme to the target. Not mentioned there either. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 World Athletics Indoor Championships

[edit]

No relevant information or mention of the 2028 event at the target, misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future Formula One World Championships

[edit]

The only relevant information at the target is that some of the grands prix are contracted through x year at Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix. As it stands, anybody searching for this will find a lack of relevant information about that season's championship, hence, the redirects are misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless article creations indeed. Maybe a warning for the creator too, since I'm guessing it was the same person, to prevent this time-wasting exercise in the future. Seasider53 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seasider53: I don't believe a warning would be necessary at this point in time. I believe the editor is experienced enough that, if this nomination results in deletion, to not needlessly recreate the redirects. Sometimes a deletion is enough, and I don't think we need to take it any farther at this point in time. Also, to be clear, are you making a general comment, or voting for deletion in this case? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support their deletion. Seasider53 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all completely unhelpful and frankly useless redirect. SSSB (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future Indian Premier League seasons

[edit]

There's no relevant information listed at the target, delete as misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSSHQ

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Ceddin Deden

[edit]

Article now does not mention Ceddin Deden in any capacity anymore. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 contribs 11:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eirik Suhrke

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Eirik Suhrke

April 4, 1974

[edit]

I am going to re-list this at redirects for discussion because I had created this redirect in error. The correct date was supposed to be April 3, 1974. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It had previously been closed as no consensus. This probably met speedy deletion criteria but I had sent ahead and RfD’d it instead because a similar discussion was ongoing at the time. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 06:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing the deletion of the error redirect. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 06:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative; I would favor retargeting to April 1974. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the previous RfD was Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 3#March 31, 2023, which closed as no consensus. The redirect cannot therefore be speedily deleted under criteria G6 or G7. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: this would be a technical deletion with no actual content being removed, which is an exception to the above-stated rule. The redirect may be speedily deleted since it was created in error. Additionally, nobody was in favour of keeping this particular redirect in the previous discussion; the creator's note—mentioned at least three times during that discussion, to the effect that it was a mistake that should be deleted—seemed to pass completely unnoticed. So delete. P Aculeius (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any redirect that has survived a previous deletion discussion, regardless of why, is explicitly ineligible for most speedy deletion criteria, including G7 and very nearly all G6. The comments in the previous RfD favoured retargetting not deletion. Content would be removed here so it is not an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly covered as "an exception to the norm that a page surviving its most recent deletion discussion". And because this was created as a redirect, there was never any content to save. It was created by mistake; the author has explicitly said that multiple times. This is a technical deletion of a redirect that serves no useful purpose, so there is no reason to hold it up. P Aculeius (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We know it was created by mistake, that's irrelevant now that other editors recommended something other than deletion. Redirects do not meet the exemption to G6 as the redirect will be lost. If you disagree with this start a discussion at WT:CSD to change the policy, but unless and until that gains consensus this is not speedily deletable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the policy. It clearly states that technical deletions where no content will be lost are exceptions. The reason being that there is no conceivable reason to hold up deletion. I don't need to change anything; that's what it says, as I've already explained twice. The idea that the exception can't be speedily deleted because "the redirect will be lost" is utter nonsense, because under that reading nothing could ever be speedily deleted, and the language about exceptions wouldn't apply to anything! Why are we holding up deletion of a mistake that should never have existed? P Aculeius (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the policy, multiple times, and it clearly states that where content will be lost the exception does not apply. The content being discussed here is a redirect, which will be lost. The exception applies to temporary deletions and things like round-robin moves.
    Why are we holding up deletion of a mistake that should never have existed? because the consensus of the previous discussion was that it should not be deleted. One editor does not get to override consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect is not content; it is a title with no content, and this has never been anything except for a redirect. The concept of exceptions would be meaningless if the mere existence of a title were content that needed to be shielded from deletion. There was no consensus that this redirect should be kept; apart from the author requesting that it be deleted as a mistake, there was no discussion of this redirect at all. It was completely ignored in that discussion, and a lack of discussion shows no consensus of all. Please stop obstructing a mere technical deletion of a mistake that has never had any justification for existing. P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I refuse to engage with you any further as you are clearly not listening to anything I say. Thryduulf (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well still; I had created this redirect in error; and because it survived the previous RfD; that threw speedy deletion out the window; so I relisted it here. The correct redirect for the super outbreak is April 3, 1974. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand why the redirect is an error, the article says the outbreak was April 3-4, 1974. List of tornadoes in the 1974 Super Outbreak#April 4 event would seem to confirm that, no? (Note: this is explicitly not an endorsement of Thryduulf's interpretation of CSD.) -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the April 4th part was mainly carried over from the night of April 3rd (which was the date I had intended to use). Most if not all of the tornadoes on April 4 were in the wee hours of the morning. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There were a few outliers; but the good majority of the April 4th twisters were in the early morning hours. See why I said the redirect was an error? I had intended to use the date of the violent F5 tornadoes (eg. The Xenia tornado); rather than the date when the outbreak was winding down. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I still don't see why you said that the redirect was an error. Even if most of the April 4th tornadoes were in the "wee hours of the morning", it's still April 4th... The list includes a couple deadly F3's, so it's not like they weren't violent. That said, if you really want the redirect deleted I won't stand in your way because I do respect author's wishes. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My rationale is that April 3 was the main outbreak day; and I had intended to create the redirect for the main day. If it’s truly worth having a redirect; then I’m all for keeping it or changing the target. But it would probably only be a matter of time before GeorgeMemulous or someone else RfD’d it again. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix, if you’re bound and determined to keep this. As a distant second; I might favor retargeting to April 1974. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm amenable to that. -- Tavix (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to April 1974. We shouldn't redirect dates to events except in exceptional cases like January 6, 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget; the outbreak has long-term significance and might be the primary topic. However, I do remain leery of targeting redirects to a single event. My preference is retargeting to the correct section of April 1974. It should definitely not be deleted. See the arguments set out at WP:RDATE. Cremastra (u — c)
  • Retarget per [[User:LaundryPizza03 - We shouldn't be targeting dates to things that potentially happened on the day in a world where many things will have happened on that day, unless there is a plausible reason to believe people lookign for that date will want to see that specific event. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will (sociology)

[edit]

The word "will" does not even appear on the page, and it's not obvious what it's referring to. Batrachoseps (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 AFC U-20 Asian Cup squads

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup squads

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 Africa Cup of Nations squads

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

June 3, 2007

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


October 24

[edit]

Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition

[edit]

Weird non-namespace; this should very likely be deleted. That aside: the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). Thus, see this deletion discussion; if this is deemed worthy to exist as is, then that template will need to be restored. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as non-ambiguous and useful cross wiki redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not our responsibility to clean up the WMF's sloppiness. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're volunteers; we don't have to do anything. We don't have to pitch in to help WMF improve administrator tools, but taking action to obstruct that project seems quite counterproductive. In this case, if we disclaim responsibility for anything and take no action, the redirect stays in place and the WMF project continues unimpeded. -- Beland (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What the heck is wrong with you rampant deletionists. I created that redirect because somebody posted on my talk page with a link to it, so I imagine they posted the same wrong link to lots of other talk pages. In other words, the redirect is helpful and fixes an issue for multiple people. (Personal attack removed) If you want to be helpful, go through all those talk pages and fix the links, although by this point a lot of people will likely have already clicked the wrong link and been redirected correctly due to my intervention. — Timwi (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you imagined they posted the same wrong link to lots of other talk pages, did you check if they even did? I see four user talk links in its whatlinkshere. One of them is to their own, one of them is to yours (RFD notice), one of them is to an ip who disruptively edited the page, and the last... I have no idea, accidental link to wikipedia instead of meta I would assume. mwwv converse∫edits 12:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They actually did. They used links to Special:MyLanguage which aren't tracked by WhatLinksHere. And yes, I know that. And I'm a "rampant deletionist" and proud of it. But it's still not our job to compromise mainspace to clean up the WMF's sloppiness. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. resulted from a malformed link in a template (Special:MyLanguage/Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition, as probably opposed to meta:Special:MyLanguage/Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition, seeing as the second link was wmf:Special:MyLanguage/Legal:Administrator Experiences 2024 Survey Privacy Statement), so it's easier to just fix it and call it a day. would also recommend notifying bgerdemann cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought, would it even be worth fixing the links? the only instances that weren't intentional are on timwi and uozurumba's talk pages
to make things a little worse, the error seems to have spread to other languages' equivalents of the template, which is... not totally garnular, if i'm being perfectly honest, but that's most likely a problem for the other wikis cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: I'm sure many others are in the same situation. There are exactly zero redirects to meta in the mainspace besides this one. That is what makes this one in particular problematic; it will force us to restore a template and maintain a redirect to a place where we have determined that it is not appropriate to redirect to within the mainspace. The links should be fixed, yes. But not as a pre-condition to deleting this. This redirect is actively harmful because it creates a standing problem and template maitenance work for us that we would not otherwise have. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it harmful? We could just ignore it. -- Beland (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'd say that it's just wrong and afoul of my obsessive compulsions on logical organization of the wiki, but thinking about it, this does seem like a good situation for IAR... i just feel like it's more "tidy" if we clean up all the links and delete this redirect, but if there's no consensus for the former, i can accept that there is no consensus for the latter Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring and maintaining a template for one mistake far outweighs the benefit this being extant provides. Ignoring it and breaking a carefully cultivated system of organization is even worse. We could just ignore it can be said about literally anything that arises. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2035 Rugby World Cup

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete.

Democracy Index

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

2035 Cricket World Cup

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nortwest Airways

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Nortwest Airways

North Hanningfield

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

buccal organ(s)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#buccal organ(s)

Exclusion (film)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Tesonet

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Tesonet

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of leaders of the opposition in the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

American Mongoloid

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Indian lore

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

North American people

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Real G's move in silence like lasagna

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

11ss-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 23

[edit]

Diddler and The Diddler

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Diddler and The Diddler

Tapestries MUCK

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29#Tapestries MUCK

Naoki Tanisaki

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

King Roland

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Draft:Chinese Spyware

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete per criterion G10.

John Atoms

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#John Atoms

Srishti

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Srishti

Protect Scarlet

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ansem

[edit]

weird case, bordering on nonsensical. read at your own risk, this is the most simple and clean way i can possibly put it. "ansem" refers to two characters in kingdom hearts. one is a nerd who likes cosplaying as a mummy, listed here, and the other is a xehanort who stole the name because boys will be boys i guess. the xehanort seems to be the primary topic (if only because he popped up first and is hotter), but not by much, and kh discourse pretty often disambiguates things by referring to the latter as "ansem, (the) seeker of darkness" (or sod) and the former as "ansem the wise". this title has previously been used for redirects for both ansems and a dab for... both ansems (plus two people who were mistaken for an ansem for a few seconds each). opinions on... really, anything? cogsan (χ-BLADE!) (ouchie ouch) 17:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep and add hatnote or retarget to list of KH characters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question as the previous relist. Notified of this discussion at the proposed target as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to ansem (disambiguation) per the ip. nice job, may kingdom hearts shower you with darkness and confusing timey-wimey stuff cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustment personality disorder

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Substituted

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


October 22

[edit]

Bonnie Pointer (album) (disambiguation)

[edit]

I don't think this "double disambiguation" makes for a useful redirect. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's a similar redirect. Web-julio (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swancore

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Disney

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Firstly

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Firstly

Tenorite (typeface)

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, meaning it's a somewhat misleading redirect for someone searching for the term expecting to find information on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 CONCACAF Futsal Championship

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Site-specific Comedy Opera

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29#Site-specific Comedy Opera

QSO J0100-2708

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Félix Trinidad vs. Ray Lovato

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

PKS 0451-28

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#PKS 0451-28

Bussy Anand

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

When the horizon's at the bottom, it's interesting. When the horizon's at the top, it's interesting. When the horizon's in the middle, it's boring as shit!

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ain't no party like a diddy party

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

How many of us have them

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29#How many of us have them

Kahako

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: refine

October 20

[edit]

Crapulinksy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Invest 90L

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Decco Bishop

[edit]

No entry at the target page, only appears within a reference. Nothing really encyclopedic about this person. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: Thanks for the tip on the mention; imo that's still WP:SURPRISEing though (at the Fair City subsection), especially if the material changes and the mention disappears, then we'll be left with an unhelpful redirect while that occurs. If people are searching for a character, I'd think they'd expect to end up at a list of characters. This still feels niche enough to delete as the character appears to be exceedingly minor from what I'm seeing. Can always be recreated if there's an entry that gets created later. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaca Dam

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mollejon Dam

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29#Mollejon Dam

Adrian Shephard (Half-life, Opposing force)

[edit]

Disambiguation was written incorrectly. The correct name is Half-Life: Opposing Force, not Half-life, Opposing force. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launch into a new adventure!

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

3.1415926535…

[edit]

Delete. This has been created a few months ago. It is just the maximum number of digits that Wikipedia happens to allow for a page title. This is not a reasonable search term, and I would argue it fails rule #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE: being a novel or obscure synonym that's unlikely to be useful. The edit summary for its creation, which is "255 (the max) number of characters. Lol.", also makes me wonder if this was a joke edit (this user has had something of an "obsession" with the 255 character limit, compare this example). Renerpho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some readers may stumble on a very long series of digits and not realize it is pi, so they would search it up, truncating as necessary. Ca talk to me! 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And where does "truncating as necessary" at exactly 255 digits come in? Truncating at 256 will result in an error, and truncating at 254 leads to a redirect that doesn't exist. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Longest technically possible version of a number that is infinite. This is especially relavent because it is a non-repeating number that it is not uncommon to memorize many digits out in popular math culture. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for too long to look at the digits. What is the point of adding these huge numbers of digits, expecting the audience to search the number of Pi in an alternative way by those digits they memorize? If they would like to search for this mathematical constant, can't they just type "Pi" instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix, et al. and my arguments at a similar discussion that took place in March 2021. It's unambiguous, harmless, and potentially helpful to people searching for pi regardless of how many digits they type in. Like Tamzin argues above me, this is a plausible truncation of the full number pi (which has thousands, millions, possibly even billions of digits), just like all the other pi-digit redirects I cited in that discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way to use this redirect AFAIK is to memorize hundreds of digits of pi and actually type (or paste) an exact number of these digits into the search engine. All modern engines would try to autocomplete the prompt (the one in Wikipedia after 3.141592 is typed will identify just the Pi and this strange redirect, so it would be great to hear a description of the scenario, where a genius who memorized all these digits (1) does not know that they belong to pi and (2) is oblivious to the suggestion of the search engine. Викидим (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep technically correct redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.
If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.
(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.
Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't follow that because we don't delete a redirect of a certain character, we should therefore create others of the same character, or even encourage, or even not discourage such creations. With articles these three lines are so close that for most people and most purposes they merge into one. Redirects are different because they can be harmless, they don't advertise their presence like articles, and they are very cheap in all resources, especially editor resources (unless they get nommed for deletion). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Not all truncations are plausible search terms, but this one is because it will catch every one using both it and any longer titles. It will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people using slightly shorter tuncations to the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as implausible and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706. It's clear that nobody would reasonably type this in for anything other than novelty (I am not convinced by the "copy paste" argument, more on that below) and these types of titles cause more trouble and discussion than its worth, all for reaching a two-character article. We wouldn't permit e (number) or square root of 3 to have these types of titles, and all of these digits are not discussed at Pi either, making the full length of this title an undiscussed subject at the target page. We don't have any material on Wikipedia about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrary space)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. This number doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Conversely, we have an article on the mathematical constant, and that constant has this value at two hundred and fifty-five significant figures. By extension, this redirect is misleading because all of these digits included in the search term are not listed at the target, so people who want to read about all of the digits they typed in, wouldn't be able to. Tests to copy-pasting into the search bar do not work for me, as the search bar does not accept anything longer than 255, gives a MediaWiki error and/or "no results matching the query". But Google takes more than 255 characters and actually HAS all of the digits listed on various pi sites. so if "someone sees it without context", Google seems the way to go. A Wikipedia redirect for not 254, not 256, but exactly 255 digits of unmentioned material, does not seem useful or helpful, nor realistic for reading the Wikipedia article about Pi. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A correction (I admit I wasn't careful enough when I tested this myself): If you search for between 256 and 300 digits, you'll just not find anything (neither the current redirect, nor Pi). It is only when you enter 301 or more digits that you get the error message. Compare H:S vs. WP:TITLELENGTH. Renerpho (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This redirect is not just this redirect, it's this AND EVERYTHING LONGER. It's plausible, as they could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect. Unambiguously accurate target. Harmless. WP:CHEAP. For the record, I would not mind if literally every amount of digits between this and 3.14 was also a redirect, but that is another discussion. Fieari (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "They could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect" -- that is not true. Pasting in anything longer and clicking "search" results in an error, with or without this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And for completeness, using a smaller number of digits (say, 254) isn't helped by this redirect either. Clicking "search" doesn't find the article, but Wikipedia's auto-completion will suggest 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which leads them to the correct target. The redirect in question is only useful if users paste in that exact number of digits. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Renerpho, this redirect is a handful of bytes in size, and it is obviously going to the right place. The fact it is "only useful" if the user types in something non-standard is completely fine, that is the very point of a redirect. By my count, you've made 10 comments over 23 edits on this RFD - it may be beneficial to take a step back, the outcome of this is not really a big deal in the wider scheme of things. BugGhost🦗👻 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment Renerpho was responding to states this redirect works for 255 characters and "EVERYTHING LONGER [sic]"; capitalization not mine. The strength from the !vote seems to be derived from (>255) functionality. Renerpho then says that it's not actually the case, and that the redirect only functions at 255 digits exactly, or (=255). (Indeed, I've come to the same conclusion from my tests). You then say that's "completely fine", seeming to agree with the (=255) status, a wholly different state of mind from what Fieari stated in their !keep. Where is the goalpole? Is this being !kept for encapsulating everything beyond >255, or exactly =255? Because I was led to believe the former, as the only reason it could be seen as exceptional and not meet a fiery fate alongside the rest of the overly long "exact digit matches", such as this (deleted) (=28) and this (deleted) (=35) and this (example of reasonable length) (=12) and this (speedy deleted) (=208) and this (speedy deleted) (=29) and this (deleted) (=98). We deleted these because digits of pi aren't listed on the page. This indicated "consensus to limit" these, but no rule beyond the existing outlier of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. It's cannot be "obviously going to the right place" if obnoxiously long pi redirects have been discussed ad nauseum and historically deleted at 100% certainty @RfD every single year since 2011.{{cn}} Utopes (talk / cont) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: Consensus can shift, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Right now, a small majority of votes is in favour of keep, and claiming consensus to delete it looks illusory at this point. I feel like this really opens Pandora's box though. If we keep this one then we should think carefully about how we limit redirects like this in the future. There are some serious votes here, staying unchallenged by most other keep voters, for creating redirects to literally every possible truncation. That would be a huge shift in policy. But even if we only allow the redirect with 255 digits as a special exception (because it's considered useful for some reason, even if based on a misconception of how the search function works), why only for Pi? What about any other notable real number? Renerpho (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Renerpho: I'm not sure what you mean if you're responding to me, I'm !voting delete. I totally agree with where you're coming from. Creating a redirect for every single amount of digits for specifically only pi is not reasonable or practical imo. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: I did intend to respond to you. The argument that this was historically deleted at 100% certainty isn't really relevant if the consensus has changed since. I am trying to understand the consequences of what we're doing here, and if Bugghost is right that I was/am overreacting. I stepped away for three days, and what's happening looks as wrong now as it did when I left. I don't plan to make many further comments in this discussion. BugGhost is right that this isn't worth a big hoo-haa either way. Still, I'm trying to understand where we're coming from with the serious arguments for keep (that's not a question to you, Utopes, just something I'm asking myself). Renerpho (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree consensus can change. It was just interesting because it seems like people who are !keeping have not actually tried typing more than 255 digits (it doesn't work). So the only way this works is exactly 255 digits. But we deleted exactly 98 digits and many others, historically. So if the assumption is that we are keeping this because "exactly 255 digits is plausible", my question for !keepers is "what makes exactly 255 digits more plausible than exactly 98 digits", which was deleted. Because the fact that MediaWiki prevents things more than 255, is purely coincidence and not something that a casual reader could possibly consider when beginning their quest of typing 255 numbers and then stopping immediately. And then do we do this for every number with repeating decimals? 0.999? 1.00000 and 255 zeroes? Because 1.0 redirects to 1, and that's a whole number. For the last 14 years it seems that any amount of decimals beyond 30 is viewed as utterly implausible. But consensus can change! So I'm curious exactly what became different, where two years ago =98 digits (no more no less) was unfathomable but =255 digits (no more no less) is a-okay. Oh well. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let me know the search engine that you tried with a larger number of digits. I tried quite a few, and did not get the results described by you. Викидим (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes and others. Come on people, this is exactly the sort of useless stuff that WP:PANDORA is suited for. And for all you keepers, why Pi? Why not Chronology of computation of π or Approximations of π instead? Wouldn't someone pasting in so many digits be more likely interested in the computational aspects of generating those digits and not a general article on the number itself? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those targets would WP:ASTONISH. If a user searches a decimal version of pi (no matter the quantity of digits) then Pi should be target; we shouldn't guess that they would prefer a more niche article. BugGhost🦗👻 07:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nothing should be the target, because no one is going to search for exactly 255 digits, as others have already pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with @Utopes and say delete and salt on the basis that this redirect is excessively and unreasonably large. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for previous reasons. It would be more costly in terms of bandwidth to delete the redirect, as there is a very small chance someone might actually use it. Not problematic, as an opposition to WP:COSTLY. 2003 LN6 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While 255 characters may be the limit, I find it implausible that someone is going to type all 255 characters (or even copy and paste 255 characters; where would they even get 255 characters from? I would argue for keep if the search bar limit was 255 characters, but that's not the case). Procyon117 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the search bar limit, anyway? (It's 300, not 255; 255 I think is the limit for the length of article titles.) Renerpho (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely no policy reason to delete. It is by no means novel or obscure. It's a very cheap way of getting people to the right place, compared with the cost of having a discussion about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirects are cheap but this is straight up implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless and accurate ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 15:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamster717, most editors are requested to delete for long digit number in terms of approximation equals to pi. But can you clarify your proof? It seems that WP:CHEAP is not advisable as harmless. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I swayed back and forth on this one but ultimately it’s just not plausible that someone’s going to search exactly this many digits of pi. And yes, this is a pretty straight-forward example of WP:Pandora. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: harmless and unambiguous. Deleting for the sake of deleting. C F A 💬 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Aside from the inanity of it, unnecessary redirects are not entirely harmless (and we should stop using harmlessness as a rationale):
    1. I periodically have to search for all uses of redirects to an article to do some associated cleanup maintenance, and having a multitude of such redirects makes this painfully tedious work.
    2. When redirects for misspellings or other deprecated versions of a term exist, this hides inadvertent spelling errors by editors that they (or others) would ordinarily be alerted to by a redlink.
    3. WP search suggestion already works suggesting article through similarity of spelling, so we do not even need the search benefit of minor variants being redirects. —Quondum 14:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Omega Mu

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Oman women's national under-17 football team

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Harshveer Sekhon

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Moot.

I'm easy to find

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

A Novo

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Murder of Bouba and Kiki

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

Α-Methylmescaline

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

IRAS 13349+1428

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#IRAS 13349+1428

October 17

[edit]

Typhoon Katrina

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Turn Off the Lights extension

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nerubian

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Mentioned once in passing at Mummy (undead) and at World of Warcraft: The War Within but neither of those have enough substance to support a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More options came up after the 2nd relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Crazy doing a 4th relist for this, but ... there seems to not be consensus supporting the current status quo, and I don't see a WP:BARTENDER close fixing this since stances are all over the place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of Monster Hunter monsters

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sound stag

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Clash of Clans Town Hall 10

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List over Swedens Municipalities

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cackala

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Cackala

9jeJbdVl2jI

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ebony Eyez

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Razah

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Grenada women's national under-17 football team

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Himanshi Gawande

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Council of Narbonne (1017)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Meenakshi Rohilla

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Redirect replaced with an article

Tighten

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

let's try this again... closed before with no consensus, with votes torn between... everything, really. opinions? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, my vote will be to retarget to tight cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Per WP:SSRT, only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects (emphases mine). This word is neither commonly wikified (indeed, there are no mainspace links that point to it), nor has it been repeatedly recreated. But because it might reasonably be a search term for multiple items on Wikipedia, and none seem like an easy primary topic, a dab page should suffice. My view has not changed since the prior discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I acknowledge I was pinged. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Vote" added at the (current) end of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in with a Delete vote, although I'm okay with both the idea of retargeting or hatnoting to Tight. Either way, this shouldn't stay as-is, for the extremely simple fact that anyone looking for the extremely common English verb would be heavily astonished to find themselves here-- I struggle to think of a way that Megamind, the movie, is more notable than the English language word that it references as a joke. If we stay at Megamind, it needs a hatnote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eh? seems like the consensus was to retarget this time cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. You can't just ignore previous !votes when a discussion is relisted. Right now this is clearly "no consensus", probably leaning towards a WP:NCRET disambiguate closure. C F A 💬 14:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, way I see it, this is headed straight for a WP:BARTENDER close. We don't have a consensus on where to go, but the Keep and Merely Hatnote votes are a quite small minority compared to Disambiguate, Retarget, and Delete combined (in sum total, the "We Can't Stay Here" vote) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you know what? yeah, let's do all of those, at the same time. nothing is more evil than mildly confusing readers
for legal reasons, i do not actually endorse doing this, nor do i know how it would work cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make a disambig page on another page, retarget to the disambig page, and then, after a day, delete both. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tight as the current target is surprising. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep. Other than not being okay with the current status quo per my stance in the previous discussion, I'm no longer a blanket "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep. The DAB page does not really discuss anything connected to the idea of tightening, and I don't think that target will be helpful to the reader. "Tighten" is not a conjugation of "tight" because "tight" is not a verb. I grudgingly accept that a wikt retarget is not acceptable in this case, which leaves my distant second preference to be the DAB page, much as I agree with Steel1943 on the usefulness of that page. At bare minimum, a hatnote to the DAB and/or to wikt should be added at the target. I disagree with the argument that since an SSRT is inappropriate and the DAB page is no good, we should keep it at its current baffling target. When faced with a current target that is not the PTOPIC (and search results are pretty damning) the best course of action to help the reader is to delete, instead of plumping with a bad target because it's the lesser of two weevils. Cremastra (u — c) 00:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either:
    Delete. Thanks to the existence of Tighten (character), this shows the current target as the first result, but will be less confusing to readers who aren't looking for the film character. Slightly preferable on balance to keeping IMO, when combined with the fact that the search engine will adapt if the situation w.r.t. this redirect changes.
    Retarget to tightness. Few things at tight can be tightened. Tightness is much better in that respect. This requires a hatnote / see also link to the current target (that admittedly might look a little stranger at tightness than at tight).
  • Those two options are the most amenable to me. Either way, there definitely isn't the fuel for a new dab page. J947 ‡ edits 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is the classic example of where we might once have had an article before the clean up of fiction, but instead have a redirect the creator of which did not apparently consider is in reality a commonly used word with numerous different meanings. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps keep with hatnote? Compare Twice, which does not refer to stuff happening two times but a K-pop group, as discussed in this RM and this MRV. The MRV also brings up Thrice, which includes such a hatnote. In principle, though, I'd rather disambiguate it, pointing it to Tight as a sort of {{R from related word}}, so if that happens, I'm fine, too. I feel that a full deletion would be unhelpful overall. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote per Brainulator9. If there are no other encyclopedic topics that aren't just dicdefs, then leaving it with a pointer is probably fine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain status quo (Keep) as a procedure per Presidentman, so as to not encourage quick renominations hoping for a different result from a different crowd. The renomination rationale had to be convincing and I didn't find it so. Jay 💬 14:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of swears

[edit]

No such list at the target; we shouldn't suggest readers that we do. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd normally recommend deletion... would it be a bad idea to simply redirect to Seven Dirty Words? It's not a list of literally all English-language profanity, but it is at least a list of some profanity. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be a good redirect, as that list is significantly narrower than the search term - for example it omits all non-English swear words (of which we have multiple lists). Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I still advocate for creating a list of lists... since we do have all those lists. Fieari (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is scope for some sort of list of lists, and nothing in this RfD prevents an editor from creating one, but the title of that list of lists wouldn't be "List of swears". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Douvall

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Will (sociology)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Will (sociology)

Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208)

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

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

April 4, 1974

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#April 4, 1974

June 23, 2016

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 12

[edit]

National Sports Administration

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Erie Von Detten

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 30#Erie Von Detten

Bot policy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Image use

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

No original research

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Deletion policy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banning policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "banning policy" is not restricted to the internet. Delete as too vague; we don't have a broad-topic article on banning. My second preference is to retarget to Ban. Cremastra (u — c) 19:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cremastra. The un-XNR retarget was an WP:ATD compromise, and is not the best. We don't have to make another ill-fitting compromise, to a target not having info on the specific "policy", and this being a recently created redirect. Jay 💬 18:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Jay, seems like a redirect that wouldn't stand on its own, ignoring the XNR history. Legoktm (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Days

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Scottish Nose-pickers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Scottish Nose-pickers

2032 Copa América

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dietary biology of the of the Nile crocodile

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Joining the of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

JD "the Couch" Vance

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Couch sex

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Having sex with couch

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

K'gari (local council), Queensland

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of speakers of the of the Wisconsin State Assembly

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

American American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1254650106"