Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 2 17 57 9 85
TfD 0 0 2 0 2
MfD 0 0 3 0 3
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 0 0 0
AfD 0 0 1 0 1

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

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

STEP I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

August 9[edit]

[edit]

These specific hangul syllables are targeted at Hangul (among with many, many others) but they are not mentioned at all in the article. They are mentioned at Hangul Syllables, but it's unclear if we want to retarget many, many syllables to there, or if they should be deleted. TartarTorte 17:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baby Blast[edit]

Non-notable element in the movie that is not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: This is a trivial scene in the movie that would be unlikely to be mentioned in the article as it was not particularly notable to the plot itself and was not a big cultural phenomenon. As an aside, I believe the name would be properly BabyBlast; however, that needn't be created. TartarTorte 16:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colonization of Earth[edit]

There is nothing at the target section about humans colonizing the Earth. For that to even make sense, humans would have had to come from somewhere else. In the earlier section Origin of life and evolution, it says "life colonized Earth's surface", perhaps this could go there or to some other article. MB 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adresses of Russian Embassies changed recently[edit]

What is "recently"? This redirect will be problematic in the future and it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 11:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia has been around for long enough that one could have created a French products renamed recently to describe things like Freedom fries, which while recent in 2003, is not so recent now. (N.B. I'm not comparing the scenarios of a subset of Americans being mad at France to the rest of the world being mad at Russia; they're quite different; it's just a convenient example because things were also renamed). This is a COSTLY redirect. TartarTorte 12:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hanging Man[edit]

Ambiguous redirect. Title doesn't specifically refer to this tarot card. CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There's the dab page The Hanged Man. Given search results, I'm inclined to retarget to Hanging man (candlestick pattern) but I'm happy to listen out for other options here. I think we should keep in mind a couple of things: the disambiguation option and that Hanging man is a red link; it as it stands should be the title of the candlestick pattern page. J947edits 10:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prime Minister of Argentina[edit]

The Cabinet Chief is not a prime minister, as in Argentina's presidential democracy the role of head of government is still bestowed upon the president. Thus retarget to President of Argentina Jueo (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: The figure of Prime Minister does not exist in Argentina. Redirecting it could be misleading. Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to President of Argentina: It's likely whoever is searching this is trying to find the leader of Argentina and redirecting that person to the President of Argentina is quite likely what they want. It seems that Prime Minister of the United States has gone to RfD twice and the arguments there were similar in that it's a reasonable search for someone unfamiliar with the political system of the country. TartarTorte 14:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gstieß[edit]

Delete per WP:RLOTE. No particular affinity between this tarot card and the German language. CycloneYoris talk! 08:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of former GMA Artist Center artists[edit]

Originally nominated for deletion under AfD last October 2021. Title is non sense at the redirect target, the "Lists" has no connection within the target. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most viewed article[edit]

Should this redirect to WP:Statistics or WP:Popular pages? Interstellarity (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. "Most viewed article" of what? One could presume the reader would be looking for WP's most viewed article, but I don't think "Most viewed article" by itself is specific enough. Why couldn't it be "most viewed article" of Slate or BuzzFeed, etc.? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views - I think it's fair to assume the most common intent is to find the most-viewed Wikipedia article. We don't have information on most-viewed news articles or other types as far as I know? If that's the case, then it doesn't matter if we dump someone not intending the context of Wikipedia, because we have no place else to send them. -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as unneeded WP:XNR. FAdesdae378 23:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism[edit]

Obscure, long title only redirecting to a section heading. Zero pageviews since its creation on 2021-11-26. Orphan. If not deleted, it should probably redirect instead to In-group favoritism. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay Diversity icon green.svg 16:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schoolboy humour[edit]

(Same applies to the Schoolyard humour redirect)

These redirect to Black comedy, which I don't think is accurate. Was previously a redirect to Off-color humor, which I also don't think fits. If any editors have thoughts for a better redirect, I'd like to know. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian Taliban[edit]

Pejorative term not discussed at the target, could equally refer to other articles about far-right Christian groups/ideologies, even within the context of US politics. Previously deleted for the above reasons following an RfD discussion about a decade ago, having pointed to a similar target, so I think this is worth a new discussion rather than WP:G4.

signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete as per RFD Delete number 3. --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: I do not think that RFD D3 applies here as there are quite a few media outlets who have used the term "Christian Taliban" especially after Adam Kinzinger's use of it against Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene; however, I cannot seem to find an appropriate target for this. It seems to really either needs to be its own article exploring the term (so deletion per WP:REDYES) or delete because there is no place to target it. If kept (or retargeted), a {{R from non-neutral name}} could be thrown on it. TartarTorte 13:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looking at a quick Google Scholar search, "Christian Taliban" as an epithet in the US context might meet notability guidelines, although most usage I see on Google Scholar would be primary with respect to that topic. However, it's also apparently been used as a self-label by Ukrainian far-right group Right Sector, and there's also coverage of an attempt in the 2000s of establishing a genuine Christian faction of the Taliban in Peshawar. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Google confirms it is a term in common use. [1]. Greyhound 84 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those results fall afoul of the issue I noted in the nomination statement and echoed by TartarTorte, that while this term is used as an epithet for elements of the US religious right wing, there isn't a single clear article that appears appropriate as a target, as coverage of potentially-valid referents is spread across various articles. signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laurel green[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Ø[edit]

Implausible search term. This uses the Latin O with stroke, while the symbol used for "null" is . It is very unlikely that readers would look up either of these symbols, so I suggest deleting the redirect. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: As it doesn't seem to be taking the place of any more pressing redirects, and seeing it's been used about once-a-day over the past year, it seems like it's worthwhile keeping it per WP:CHEAP. TartarTorte 01:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Both symbols are practically identical, so this is definitely not implausible. Also, pageviews for this redirect have been rather high since its creation in 2019, which clearly proves that this shortcut is not an unlikely search term as the nom states above. CycloneYoris talk! 02:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per above. Wikipedia:∅ duly created. J947edits 10:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 8[edit]

Dark olive drab[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, and not specifically mentioned in Olive (color). (There is Olive (color)#Olive drab, and there are some variants there including a variant that looks significantly darker that the initial version, but there isn't a color/shade specifically named "dark olive drab" there.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dark Olive[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, and not mentioned 'specifically in Olive (color). (This could reasonably target Olive (color)#Dark olive green I suppose, but readers may be looking this term up looking for a "dark" version of an olive, as explained in the next sentence.) In addition, I don't think this would be helpful being retargeted to Olive since readers will probably think of redirected there "What is a dark olive?" and not have their question answered. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grooming conspiracy theory[edit]

As noted on the talk page for this - there are other non-LGBT grooming claims (some of which may be dismissed as conspiracy theories), especially outside the US. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Query: is there a suitable alternate target to redirect this to? Or are there articles on the other grooming conspiracy theories that we could turn grooming conspiracy theory into a disambiguation page? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The only reason that Grooming conspiracy theory redirects to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory is because you boldly moved Grooming conspiracy theory to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory. I think this is a but much, I just don't see the logic behind the request... If there are other grooming conspiracy theories then wouldn't we make it a disambiguation page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was a bold move, but one I think had talk page consensus. As also mentioned on the talk page, in the UK in particular there are other far-right Islamophobic claims surrounding "grooming gangs", many of which are conspiratorial in nature. Plenty of these have their own Wikipedia pages, see: List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetrated_by_groups#United_Kingdom. But I think making this into a disambigation page would be too broad in scope, and subject to OR - best to delete the redirect entirely IMO as it is too vague. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was either bold or had consensus, it can't be both. You appear to have linked to actual cases of abuse, not any related conspiracy theories. Are you sure thats what you meant to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My understanding was that an edit which had narrow consensus could be considered bold by some, apologies if I don't understand Wikipedia terminology correctly. And yes it was intentional - as I explained, there are a lot of (mostly far-right, mostly Islamophobic) claims surrounding these cases that are conspiratorial in nature. This was raised by other editors on the main talk page for the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Claims which are conspiratorial in nature =/= conspiracy theory. I asked about other grooming conspiracy theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as a very recent {{r from move}} that lacks other potential targets. There's no ambiguity about this title on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. - Eureka Lott 15:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gray-asparagus[edit]

Not mentioned at target article, nor does the section exist in the target article. Note though that this redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:LOSS[edit]

Not mentioned in the target. Seems highly ambiguous to be redirecting this to a page about deceased Wikipedians. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. Shortcuts need not be mentioned, rather that they are related to the page. If someone has suffered a "loss", then someone close to them died. By analogy, that can hold true for Wikipedians as well. -- Tavix (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. As long as it doesn't conflict with other similar redirects, no problem. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. The target list is clearly a list of unfortunate losses to the project. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:GONE[edit]

Redirect is not mentioned in the target. No pages link to this redirect. The last view was on July 6, 2022. Seems insensitive to be redirecting this to a page about deceased Wikipedians. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:LATE[edit]

Not mentioned at target. I'm not sure how "Wikipedia:LATE" can refer to a page about deceased Wikipedians. I suggest disambiguating. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: I think that the term "late x" is valid enough that Wikipedia:LATE isn't a surprise. TartarTorte 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What other conceivably WP:LATE-related pages would the disambiguation page link to? Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. It sounds like the nom is unaware of "late" referring to the deceased? See wikt:late definition Adj.6: Deceased, dead. Disambiguating shortcuts is unhelpful because then they cease to be a shortcut, even more so here without other options to consider. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per above. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 21:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. FWIW, my first thought when thinking of "late" in terms of project pages is Wikipedia:Wikitime or some similar time-related page in the project space considering that edits aren't usually ever late. (Maybe there's an essay saying that somewhere?) Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:THEREISNODEADLINE? TartarTorte 01:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DikuMUD Nilgiri (disambiguation)[edit]

DikuMUD Nilgiri does not exist (deleted in 2007). Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David F. Leavitt[edit]

Delete. None of the entries at the disambiguation page is shown as known as "David Leavitt". There is apparently a David F. Leavitt (1897-1945) who was an artist, but there seems to be nothing about him on Enwiki. A link to a disambiguation page that doesn't list him is misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: This has a very weird history where this was the original location of David Leavitt but then there was no WP:RS to back that up leading the article to be moved then this was retargeted to the disambiguation. TartarTorte 19:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Texas Trailer Truck[edit]

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

Lambda sond[edit]

Although "Lambda" appears in the article, the phrase "Lambda sond" does not, nor is there any sense of what this might mean. BD2412 T 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFFL. The term "sond" is not used in English - the usual term is Lambda sensor, for which a redirect already exists. Tevildo (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That doesn't mean some people won't search on "Lamda sond", which actually has been written about in English. MB 00:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Retarget to Volvo 200 Series. It appears from MB's links that "Lambda Sond" (with a capital S) was a proprietary term used by Volvo for its automatic mixture control system when it was first introduced in 1976. This system included a lambda sensor, but the term referred to the whole system, not just the sensor. The term is used in the Volvo 200 series article. Tevildo (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are two suggested targets now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vertex (urinary bladder)[edit]

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

Vertex (topography)[edit]

"Vertex" is not mentioned at the target and there may therefore be a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. Nomination is factually incorrect. It is mentioned and relevant. "The vertices of these triangles ... A TIN comprises a triangular network of vertices, known as mass points". Nominator is apparently unaware that the plural of "vertex" is "vertices". —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @David Eppstein: Since you're far more aware than me: does the article give a definition of "vertex" in the context of topography, and is it different from the common meaning of "vertex" or the use at Vertex (computer graphics)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, it's different, because it is an object with geographic information rather than graphics-rendering information. Both of these start with vertex (geometry) and add extra information, but the information they add is different. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Mentioned (in the plural) at the target. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep I find "vertex" mentioned twice in the article Triangulated irregular network. The second instance explains what the term means: "A TIN comprises a triangular network of vertices, known as mass points, with associated coordinates in three dimensions connected by edges to form a triangular tessellation." 2601:449:8301:B10:0:0:0:204F (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2034 Winter Olympics[edit]

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

BLPprod[edit]

Redirect from article namespace to project namespace. Could redirect to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. FAdesdae378 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iron Golem[edit]

Target has changed back and forth several times between different video games with no discussion. MB 03:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Disambiguate to all prior targets -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete As overly vague. It is also the name of a Dark Souls boss and a recurring Final Fantasy enemy. However, there is no specific page with the name "Iron Golem" it needs to disambiguate. However, I would also not be opposed to a disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 07:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. There are almost two dozen articles with mentions of iron golems, and as far as I can see from a quick glimpse, none of those entities appear to get anywhere close to being significant subtopics of those articles, and so are below the noteworthiness threshold for disambiguating, and the search results do a good job of revealing them. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oh well: should have looked closer: Iron Golem is the alternative title of the TV film Iron Invader, so that's one valid target. Disambiguation could work, with one entry for that, another for Golem (which unfortunately doesn't mention iron varieties but is the closest thing to a general article), and a {{canned search}} to reveal the search results. – Uanfala (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the possible targets, one of which has an article (the film). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate When I made my initial redirect change to the Minecraft article, it was because most readers typically associate the Iron Golem with the mob in Minecraft which is more well known within popular media as well as the fact that most of the redirects history was redirecting to the Minecraft article. With that all being said, there are other fictional entities with the same name so a disambiguation is a more appropriate course of action than only focusing on one, especially since it doesn't even have a standalone article. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate per those above. BD2412 T 06:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Iron Invader, which looks to be the only cromulent target. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any of the other suggested disambiguation entries meeting WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay Diversity icon green.svg 06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Iron Invader since it's alternatively named as such. I don't see the point on a dab with entries about games with iron golems in it as it is a very ubiquitous enemy monster. --Lenticel (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fuckfest[edit]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: This is a valid synonym. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with MZMcBride— Tazuco ✉️ 19:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as a valid and fairly widespread synonym for the target. Redirects aren't articles, and they don't need to use tame language to be useful to readers. Glades12 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Glades12: But that is not my actual concern. The problem is that the term as such does not appear in the target (see WP:R#PLA). Hildeoc (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a problem, but I don't think deleting this redirect is a good solution. Maybe we can find a reliable source (not Urban Dictionary, of course) and add a list of slang terms at Group sex#Terms? Glades12 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

This redirects to Hangul, it might make sense to redirect to Hangul Syllables instead as this is on that page as U+BEF8; however, seeing as no other symbols redirect to that page and there are many, many symbols, it seems like this could be deleted without harm. TartarTorte 00:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete — It's a very specific Hangul block as well and has no common usage. I see no utility in keeping it as a redirect. Yue🌙 20:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giant white shark[edit]

I don't see any real useage of this term for "Megalodon" at all, and it seems like an implausible search term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vincian[edit]

This is a neologism. The Tumblr coining of this term determined it was a replacement of achillean (an LGBT slang for MLM (men loving men), which includes both gay and bisexual men, not just gay men, however some Fandom and Miraheze wikis treated this term as a word for gay men only). I propose this to be soft redirected to wikt:Vincian. Or similarly as Achillean, to be retargeted to Leonardo da VinciTazuco ✉️ 00:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 7[edit]

Well-poised[edit]

See Talk:Well-poised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

Unneeded WP:XNR that could possibly redirect to somewhere else. FAdesdae378 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: just added links to previous discussions. - Eureka Lott 02:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget Hatnote (and maybe Hat note) to Listen to Wikipedia since the target's full name is "Hatnote: Listen to Wikipedia", so the title "Hatnote" could refer to the subject per WP:SUBTITLES. Delete the rest per Shhhnotsoloud. Steel1943 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget Hatnote and Hat note to Listen to Wikipedia; delete the rest. Per Steel1943. Veverve (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate at Hatnote. Cross-namespace navigation is not out of bounds for very salient wikitopics (e.g. Create article) -> Help:Your first article) or for widely used wikijargon (see links to WP:DAB at DAB or to WP:NPOV at NPOV). Hatnotes are sufficiently common to warrant such a pointer, and I'm not aware of the term being used for anything that's not related to wikipedia. With Hatnote: Listen To Wikipedia, we have an uncommon short title of an obscure topic that's still firmly inside the wikirealm, so I don't think this could be any more eligible as a target, despite being in article space. I see WP:HATNOTE as the primary topic for the term, but prefer disambiguating because 1) the context provided by a dab entry can reduce the possibility of confusion when sent straight to the project page, 2) the dab can more easily accommodate a "see also" pointer for Headnote, and 3) the project page already has a lot of hatnotes, so we have an incentive to reduce them. Hat note and Hatnotes should be retargeted to the dab, with HATLINK deleted as it's too obscure to cross the mainspace threshold. Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Denim (color)[edit]

Nominating these redirects procedurally since Denim (color) had an RFD in 2018 and a AFD in 2011 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denim (color)) that resulted in "delete". The target and/or embedded anchor these redirects target no longer exists; the subject is mentioned in the target article, but it does not seem to be the only plausible target. This color is also mentioned in a list at List of Crayola crayon colors#Standard colors (as mentioned in the previous RFD). In addition, Denim (color) is a {{R with history}} that hints it is a shade of a color and could be listed in one of those pages more accurately. Not sure an ultimate plan here, but it doesn't seem as though the current situation is really helpful for readers. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deep peach[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Looks as though the section target was renamed in this edit with the claim that there is no such color as "deep peach". Otherwise on Wikipedia, the only article that seems to contain the phrase "deep peach" is Anagallis arvensis, and it does not seem to be a helpful/valid retargeting option for this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dark pink[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Due to the section redirect, it seems this term may have been mentioned in the target article at some point, but I'm not seeing where it was removed from the target article (assuming it was ever there.) Also, this redirect is an {{R with history}}; it was an article for a couple of months in 2005. Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catholic Resistance[edit]

The redirect was an unsourced article which was pure OR, one a non notable subject; it was turned into a redirect in 2008 by an IP.
There is no mention of a "Catholic Resistance" at the current target. There is no good target for this redirect.
Therefore, this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gregory XIX[edit]

No mention at the target anymore. The section has been deleted. Therefore, the redirects should be all deleted. Veverve (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soldier-King[edit]

Soldier King is a recently created dab page and it feels quite odd for Soldier-King to redirect to a specific monarch when that dab page exists. As such, I propose that we retarget Soldier-King to point at Soldier King. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D. B. S. Jeyaraj[edit]

Not listed at target. MB 19:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hong Kong Parliament Electoral organising committee[edit]

Deletion Reason 8 - very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Niggaracci[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an alias used in his capacity as a producer, eg: on The Big Squeeze. For all such credits, see here. I've added it to the list of aliases at the target page. - Forty.4 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Needs a source. Ibadibam (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debut issue[edit]

I'm not sure that the "first issue (of an American comic book) to feature a fictional character" is what most people mean by "debut issue": I would have thought it would be the first issue of a thing (comic book, periodical, newspaper...). This current redirect is therefore confusing and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. If there were an article for first issue of a publication, we could disambiguate "debut issue", but there's no such article. In the absence of any other plausible redirect target, better to redirect to the only meaning of "debut issue" that has an article than to have nothing at all. —Lowellian (reply) 13:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debut album[edit]

I think what most people mean by "debut album" is an artist's first album, and not an album called Debut, which is what the current target takes you to. There are currently (until I fix them) at least three erroneous incoming links and I'm sure there were many more. Since Album doesn't mention "debut" I think the bestg thing here is to delete to prevent errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philippica[edit]

Currently, this spelling is not used in the target article. It is also confusing as a redirect as it is the name of (lost, I think) Ancient Greek text that might be notable anyway, and right now is blue-linked and takes the reader to the wrong place (see Theopompus, author). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the Latin singular for the word. Cicero's Philippics are often given their Latin title, Philippicae (which is how our article on them is titled), and might be referred to in the singular when something is cited to one of them in particular. Presumably the same could be done of the Greek originals, to which the title of Cicero's speeches allude. However, it might make sense to change the target of the redirect to Philippicae, in which case the reason for having it would be more obvious. This should be an easy "keep" unless the title is needed for some other topic. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cal Poly Pomona green[edit]

Not mentioned/identified in the target article. Previously, this redirect targeted Shades of green#Cal Poly Pomona green, but the subject is not currently mentioned there either, in addition to the section not existing. Steel1943 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brad K[edit]

"Brad K" is not mentioned in the article and I can find no evidence other than Wikipedia mirrors that Kesolowski is know as "Brad K". "Brad K" is ambiguous with a music group, which I believe is the meaning of the one incoming link from Barry Grint which I have removed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support No reason to keep the redirect. Gusfriend (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shagos[edit]

Not mentioned in the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep - Seems to be a little-used acronym, but if anyone does search for this, this article is likely what they're looking for. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay Diversity icon green.svg 08:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep This appears to be the most plausible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Though not directly applicable since this is not a disambiguation page, WP:DABABBREV has sensible guidance: Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article includes the acronym or abbreviation ... If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article and then adding the entry to the disambiguation page. Abbreviations are sometimes formed from titles in non-obvious ways (e.g. dropping short words, taking more than one letter from a given word so that it sounds better, etc.), which is the whole reason that abbreviations, like any other content, need to be verified in reliable sources as opposed to just something made up in school one day. Meanwhile, this may interfere with searches for ShagOS (which is mentioned at partition type). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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! 07:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment (in response to the IP) It might be worth turning this redirect into a disambiguation page to point readers searching for either result in the right direction. (i.e can refer to an acronym for Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows or ShagOS, an operating system). JaventheAldericky (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unless the "ShagOS" subject has an article or is mentioned and identified in another article, its inclusion in a disambiguation page would wholly fail MOS:DAB. The only mention on Wikipedia I could find of "ShagOS" is in the article Partition type, but its mention is limited to only by name in four fields in a chart without saying anything else to identify or describe it, making Partition type unhelpful as either a target for a redirect (or a mention on a disambiguation page) named "ShagOS". Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Besides being a non-WP:RS verifiable acronym, third party search results for the term "Shagos" return results such as a restaurant and a band ... which have nothing to do with the target ... and virtually no results about the target. In other words, it could be quite reasonable to assume that anyone searching this term is not looking for the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Chagas: It seems to be a more likely misspelling of Chagas especially spelled as Shagos versus SHAGOS. TartarTorte 14:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering that Chagas is a disambiguation page, I don't see how that's likely at all. That would be telling our readers that if they are looking up "Shagos", they must actually be looking for Chagas. I'd think the search results provided if this redirect were deleted would be more helpful for our readers in possibly locating what they are attempting to find (and whether we have anything about it or not.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see the issue with retargeting to a disambiguation page. Alternative, we could have a hatnote on wherever this ends up, but it seems like a very plausible misspelling due to the pronunciation of Chagos. TartarTorte 19:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mango ice cream[edit]

This was a article about a flavor of Sorbetes that was merged into Sorbetes, hence the redirect left behind. Sorbetes is a type of ice cream (in the Philippines). Mango is a flavor; all kinds of ice cream can be made with mango flavor. The current target is misleading. I don't see an alternative, so delete. MB 03:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added Mango icecream which has a different target. Mango does say ""Mango is used to make ... ice cream", but I don't know how helpful or illuminating that is. (also Mango§Cusine is a dead section link, if this is kept it should be changed to Mango§Uses. MB 04:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, retargetting to the list is reasonable --Lenticel (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Paradoxically, redirecting to the list would strip the topic of its presumption of notability, making it ineligible for inclusion in that list, in turn invalidating the redirect under discussion and leading to its deletion. Ibadibam (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sedevacantist Antipope[edit]

Not all antipopes are part of Conclavism. The Conclavism article even states: "Conclavism is different from what George Chryssides calls the "Mysticalists" phenomenon, i.e. people declaring themselves popes after receiving a personal mystical revelation. This is because in the Mysticalists' cases no human institution is used to have a pope appointed; an example of those cases is the Apostles of Infinite Love." Other examples of non-Conclavist sedevacantist antipopes are Clemente Domínguez y Gómez, fr:Michel Collin, Chester Olszewski, or Christophe XVIII.
There are no good retarget. Therefore, I believe those redirects should be all deleted. Veverve (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This is a reasonable search term. Sedevacantists who elect an antipope formally are engaging in conclavism, so it might make sense for someone to casually search for this topic that way. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 6[edit]

Ja'rod[edit]

Turned into a redirect to List of Star Trek characters (G-M)#Ja'rod by User:Cbbkr in Octobe 2013. Not mentioned at the target article. Wikipedia does not contain any information about Ja'rod so the redirect is useless. JIP | Talk 18:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing to say about this. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep or retarget per Pppery. The information that Pppery found shows that we do have something to say about this character. There's enough info from Duras's bio and in the history of the redirect to add a blurb on Ja'rod himself if someone is up to the task. -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M&L[edit]

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

Interstate Twenty-one[edit]

Delete due to the target having no information about these proposed Interstates. -- Tavix (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all. None are mentioned at the target and none of them are current Interstates. CLYDEFRANKLIN 21:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all No information on the target pages. Gusfriend (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all related to I-101 these seem to be based on a fake/proposed interstate on a wiki. I-21 and I-61 are at least theoretically feasible so I don't have a comment on them specifically. TartarTorte 21:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 July Dnirpo missile strike[edit]

Misspelling of the city Dnipro. Delete Talk:2022 July Dnirpo missile strike too. Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Probable misspelling, although there is a triple redirect that needs to be fixed if it stays. CLYDEFRANKLIN 21:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Animal Parade[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replace with DAB page per Lentical and Thryduulf -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

J. R. Get Money[edit]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, delete unless it's DUE to include at the target signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dienestrol (unspecified)[edit]

Dienestrol is a drug. Not sure what "(unspecified)" means, except maybe not Dienestrol diacetate. Doesn't seem like a useful search term. MB 18:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It give a CAS-Number for the E,E-Isomer from dinestrol see CAS 13029-44-2 (Q5274949) and one for the Z,Z-Isomer see CAS 35495-11-5(Q27258829) and then you have also a CAS-number where it is not defined (specified) if it is EE or ZZ see 84-17-3 Q61734143. But I´m not a specialist - I think some one from WikiProject Chemistry could it better Explain it. We had in The german project also a discussion about this... --Calle Cool (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. The drug discussed in the article seems to be the E,E isomer specifically (aka α-dienestrol), but just "dienestrol" by itself could technically refer to multiple isomers, represented by the 84-17-3 CAS number where the stereochemistry is unspecified (which is the case for much of the literature). That said, I don't think we need nor typically have this sort of disambiguated redirect. Whether "dienestrol" is a sufficiently precise name for the article is a different question. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Egyptian First Republic[edit]

"First Republic" is not mentioned in either of these target articles, but if these redirects are legitimate then they should point to the same article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eric Blumrich[edit]

No mention at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This is a deletion discussion, and we can make a decision here. This specific scenario is described at WP:SNOWBALL. I declined the recent speedy deletion nomination because the redirect didn't meet WP:R3, not because it's a valuable page. - Eureka Lott 00:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The R3 decline isn't relevant. What is relevant is that we would be deleting an article at RfD - there are only two cases where that is appropriate: (1) when the article was redirected with consensus (this wasn't), (2) when it would be speedily deletable as an article (this isn't, as previously explained WP:CSD explicitly prohibits speedy deletion in this case). WP:SNOWBALL cannot apply unless and until there are an overwhelming number of !votes in favour of a specific outcome, and given the RfD is 2:1 after 3 votes and the AfD is 0:0 after 0 we are not in snowball territory. Given that deletion as an article has been opposed in the past we cannot assume that there will be no opposition when it is actually properly nominated for deletion. I know you don't like this, but policy applies whether you like it or not. Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And before anyone cites WP:IAR - that only applies when the rule being ignored is preventing you improving the encyclopaedia. Deleting pages outside of process is not and cannot under any circumstances be an improvement to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think this reasoning holds: the removal of a malformed CSD tag in 2005 and declined R3 in 2022 have no bearing on the likelihood of the article surviving AfD, which is what SNOWBALL would encourage us to gauge. WP:NOTBURO also applies. signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I strongly oppose restoring this, it is wholly inappropriate for mainspace. Other than that I am fine with deletion per Eureka Lott (and subsequent reply) or a retarget to Batman Returns (Atari Lynx video game), where I think there is just enough information there where I'd be comfortable with a redirect, given this is the only mention on Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only articles that can be "wholly inappropriate" for mainspace without a consensus to that effect at AfD are those that meet one or more speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Erin Sheehan. -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The revision in question would appear to meet A7, as well as BLPPROD, for lack of credible claims of significance or independent sources. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Redirect to the video game article where this person is mentioned. I agree the info there is trivial, but it is just enough for a redirect. It there is no consensus to redirect, then Delete here. An AFD would be a waste of very limited resources to repeat this discussion in another venue, WP:NOTBURO. MB 04:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Batman Returns (Atari Lynx video game). Mr Blumrich does have a reputation - not necessarily a good one - for his various activities 20 years ago, so I think there's a case for keeping the redirect. If the video game is his only notable contribution to topics of which Wikipedia takes notice, that should be the target of the redirect. Tevildo (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Butter (alchemy)[edit]

I see no articles listed on the target disambiguation page that relate to the use of butter in alchemy (or things in alchemy called butter), nor is there a section with the header, "Alchemy". BD2412 T 04:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Restore DAB page which was later merged into Butter (disambiguation). I haven't researched when/why they were removed. Also note the old RFD that says this should be kept due to the page history, and that Butter of antimony and Butter of arsenic are mentioned in the respective articles, and Butter of antimony & Butter of arsenic are also redirects, so I think it is a valid/useful dab. MB 04:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's nothing in the page history preventing deletion. This used to be a dab page with two entries (no descriptions) [2] and before then a stub article consisting of a total of two sentences [3]. Neither is required for attribution: the content isn't found anywhere else on Wikipedia, and besides, that dab page was below the threshold of originality, while the article text, as indicated at the end, was copied from a public domain work. Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think there's anything to disambiguate here (either in a separate page or within the main dab). There are several terms of this form [4] (not just the two above); but it's "Butter of X", and it doesn't appear that any of them would have been referred to as just "butter", so they're classic WP:PTMs. Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing generic about compounds in alchemy called butter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French world[edit]

I do not think it the redirect describes its current target. This redirect formerly targeted Francophonie prior to it being retargeted to its current target by a bot after Francophonie was blanked-and-redirected towards Organisation internationale de la Francophonie back in 2020 after a brief edit war of sorts. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or disamb - French world is a strange way to describe it.Gusfriend (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: most of the Francophonie is not France. There is no good retarget. As a second choice, DABify as per 64.229.88.43. Veverve (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. This is a plausible search term for someone looking for the parts of the world that have/have had French linguistic and/or cultural heritage (c.f. Francosphere). The lead of the article says it "is an international organization representing countries and regions where French is a lingua franca or customary language, where a significant proportion of the population are francophones (French speakers), or where there is a notable affiliation with French culture." - i.e. exactly what someone will be looking for. There is also a hatnote to Geographical distribution of French speakers. Disambiguating per the IP is my second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate - If kept, I think it should be as an "R to avoid double redirect" to Francosphere. But it would be fine also to disambiguate it per the IP and I think Francosphere could target this DAB page as well. A7V2 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 5[edit]

Do It (Empire Cast song)[edit]

No mention at target page. Richhoncho (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: This is a real song with listings on Shazam and a few lyrics databases, but I can't find much coverage in prose. Should we list songs from this musical on the article anyway? Glades12 (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avocado (color)[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Per the redirect's history, it looks as though at one point, it targeted Olive (color)#Avocado instead, but the topic is not mentioned there either. Also, for what it's worth, the French Wikipedia's article seems to claim the "avocado" color is a shade of green. (If a section for this redirect's topic is restored, I have no idea which base article the section should be located.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bed death[edit]

The term "bed death" can refer to lack of sexual intimacy between peoples of any gender, not just women (although "lesbian bed death" is where the term originates). Sexless marriage would make more sense, but even that is inaccurate. As the page sexless relationship or anything comparable doesn't exist (yet), I suggest deleting this redirect altogether. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support deletion of redirect. "Bed death" does not exclusively affect lesbian relationships. It is an intimacy situation that can develop in heterosexual, homosexual (male or female), and bisexual relationships. From The Phenomenon of "Bed Death": Bed death is when two people in a committed relationship no longer have sex as often as both or either would like. Sometimes it is referred to as a “sexless relationship” because of the infrequency of intimate relations. Here in the U.S., it is estimated that there are approximately 20 million people in sexless relationships. This issue of bed death is a very real phenomenon among couples for many reasons.
"Lesbian bed death" refers to the decrease in, or end of, sexual activity in a female homosexual relationship, which can result in the breakup of the affected lesbian relationship, or the relationship continuing without sexual activity. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom, and because they'll get there anyway if they're searching for *lesbian* bed death, as it is #1 for the term bed death in Advanced search. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Soft delete until a sexless relationship article is made. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-veg joke[edit]

"veg" content (only relevant to India) has been removed from the article QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep The edit where the section was removed was justified as "only relevant to India", which is not a valid rationale to remove content from an article with no region-specific subtopic. In short, the content should not have ben straight-up deleted without discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mint (credit cards)[edit]

There is no mention of Mint, and therefore no substantive information, at the target Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Intuit Mint. Not the original use of the term, which is an apparently defunct UK brand of credit cards,but is a plausible disambiguator for the proposed target. Otherwise, given the multiple past BLARsAfds and the WP:BLAR, the only other viable option would be to restore article to its most recent version and send to Afd. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively, keeping would be valid if a mention of the brand can be added at NatWest Group#History. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Intuit Mint is known in part for credit scores and such, not cards per se, so heeding Shhh's objection below. I think this should therefore default to restore/Afd unless a mention can be added at NatWest Group#History, in which case it could be retargeted there. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple possible options here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay Diversity icon green.svg 03:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Intuit Mint. They're more probable for credit cards, and add hatnote if information about these mint credit cards can be added to a section. CLYDEFRANKLIN 21:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, that's not acceptable to me. Intuit Mint is not a credit card and (credit card) is not a plausible disambiguator here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Apocalypse[edit]

The X-Men character is not the main topic for the word Apocalypse ★Trekker (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Template:Global catastrophic risks which has links to both apocalypse and apocalyptic literature --Lenticel (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, no clear use for navbox redirects. Retargetting will make some old page versions weird, so I would prefer keeping to retargetting. —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Revert (keep) per below, consider at TFD if desired. —Kusma (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revert and send to TFD per WP:BLAR. This previously was a navbox template, and there's been edit warring about whether it should exist or not. That's an issue that can be discussed at TFD. - Eureka Lott 13:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, strike that last part. All of the users involved in the edit war have been blocked as sockpuppets. I think we can simply reinstate the template. - Eureka Lott 14:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no use for this template, everything is better handled by the individual X-Men templates, this one is just filled out with random character articles creating over templating.★Trekker (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom has turned this into a delete nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay Diversity icon green.svg 06:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Male (gender)[edit]

Male gender redirects to Gender. What's the best target? — Tazuco ✉️ 05:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Either one seems ok. No strong opinion either way. Andrevan@ 05:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Any article that includes "... (gender)" in the title should redirect to Gender. Any material (i.e. content) about gender should be a paragraph or section in the Gender article -- therefore, "Male (gender)" should be included in the Gender article (which by virtue of its title and purpose should encompass whatever a version of gender may be). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In regards to redirecting existing articles, that's a concern that RFD is not equipped to handle, and should be taken to WP:AFD instead. In addition, it could be determined while discussing some of those articles that the disambiguator "(gender)" could be erroneous in describing the subject of the respective articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Target Male (gender) to Male (disambiguation) as the disagreeing persepctives here show the term is somewhat ambiguous and this would allow the reader to choose between articles on: masculinity, men, gender (current prevailing sense), the male sex (briefly called 'gender' euphemistically in the C20) and the male grammatical gender/noun class. Llew Mawr (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd have to oppose this based on the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Besides consistency being useful for our readers, that aforementioned AFD discussion was figuratively a 3-book epic, so I'd imagine going against that precedent may not be wise. Steel1943 (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Male (disambiguation) or Gender. I suspect/hope that if Draft:Female (gender) survives once moved back to the article space, the counterpart male article will also be created. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2014 Ukrainian Civil War[edit]

Violate WP:NPOV, the term is not commonly used in reliable sources. BlackBony (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete The title is captured by the disambiguation page Ukrainian Civil War anyway. These redirects with paranthetic disambiguation are unlikely to be typed as a search and serve no purpose. —Michael Z. 13:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay Diversity icon green.svg 03:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep The nomination raises an invalid reason to delete, as the term has been used by scholars since the beginning of the conflict. There are proponents and opponents of the classification, but that is not the issue in the nomination. There are various reasons why this is important, the most consequential is perhaps in solution building and working with the true participants. In this case with interference from the West and Russia it might be easier to want to rename to include "proxy war." If you look at the death tolls from the period in question, we don't find the foreign powers represented, despite the long border with one of them burials occur where one would expect if this were a civil war.
A couple of examples: 1) Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda, 2016 deals with the conflict as a civil war while discussing a number of the external factors; and 2) see the Serhiy Kudelia contribution in The War in Ukraine’s Donbas: Origins, Contexts, and the Future by Central European University Press, 2022. Project MUSE: muse.jhu.edu/book/94684. Louis Waweru  Talk  00:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to the Russo-Ukrainian War. The war was not only in Donbas. This was was obviously not a civil war, but Russian propaganda actively used this term to avoid mentioning its participation in the war. --Крывіч (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is not obvious to me, can you show me what you mean? Louis Waweru  Talk  03:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment To clarify Ymblanter's comment: This nomination was brought forth by a sock-puppet of a now blocked user who committed Wikipedia:Long-term abuse of the English Wikipedia project. Louis Waweru  Talk  19:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Russo-Ukrainian War. I agree with Крывіч, but I would prefer the retarget based on his comments. If the Russian propaganda is still extant, then searches for the terms are likely and a redirect to Russo-Ukrainian War would be useful. But I would delete the third one (with 2014 in parenthesis), which is not as likely to be useful. Radzy0 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What is Russian propaganda, "civil war" or just that there is propaganda so this must be too? You should look up trackers of burials for fighters and civilians. Louis Waweru  Talk  03:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "But I would delete...[Ukraine Civil War]...which is not as likely to be useful."
     Highly likely
    Terminating in parenthesis invalidates the leading part of the search. If propaganda was not rampant "Ukraine Civil War" would not appear, also supporting the parenthesis effect. That's why propaganda is still rampant so "Ukrainian Civil War" needs to be erased. Louis Waweru  Talk  10:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep, this is not Russian propaganda, and the appearance of users with insignificant contribution voting delete is highly suspicious.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like an eminently reasonable redirect. Simply that foreign powers are supporting a particular side in a conflict does not cease to make it a civil war; the Russian Civil War notably had quite a great deal of direct foreign intervention. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Windows SChannel[edit]

Please consider deleting this page. It does not appear to be a common name for "Secure Channel" which doesn't have a page, but is mentioned in a list of similar packages at Security Support Provider Interface. Also, if it should remain, the correct page would have "Schannel" instead of "SChannel" in the name. The former being how most sources refer to the package. It is not linked to at the moment. Louis Waweru  Talk  08:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Louis Waweru: It is linked to from Transport Layer Security multiple times. I guess the corrections have to be made there, and while the text "Windows Schannel" there will still be valid, only the word "Schannel" will be linked to Schannel, also a redirect that you created just before you made this nomination. Also, when you say "Secure Channel" doesn't have a page, I believe you are specifically referring to a title with C in uppercase, because we do have Secure channel. Jay 💬 08:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jay, yes, someone created links since July 28th, I'll make sure to revert them as part of the page clean up or prep, I don't know why it was so prevalent on here.
Only linking from "Schannel" is intentional, there is no "Windows Schannel" so we shouldn't want to create a links from it.
Finally, Secure Channel is a product without a page, but is mentioned in SSPI, while a "secure channel" is a concept. (Maybe the dual meaning is why it wound up abbreviated as Schannel, I did look for how that came to be a few times, but just a guess still.) Louis Waweru  Talk  09:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I think I got sloppy on TLS and linked "Windows Schannel" instead of just "Schannel." Thank you for pointing that out. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knegro[edit]

Not a common misspelling based on internet search results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Gusfriend (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

N (math)[edit]

Created by a user who has been warned for creating redirects based on a subreddit involving GPT2; these particular redirects are likely based on [5]. The latter has been retargeted, but I'm not convinced that it's a good target. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hmm It's not a terrible target for searches, and it wouldn't be terrible for N either. On the flip side, you'd hate to have either of them linked from an article. Does anyone have stats on people entering something like "N (math)" directly into the search box? If that's ultra-rare, I wouldn't mind deleting both. --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC) On second thought, even if you enter it into the search box, it still doesn't really take you directly to what you want — you'd have to ctrl-f in the page, and that would hit all sorts of n's and p's. Doesn't seem worth keeping. Delete both. --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete too vague. Many different Ns and Ps in math -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely to be used and somewhat ambiguous. Lowercase n is used for all sort of things, including a general integer, and for both P and p, there are too many options and they are not easy to find at the target. —Kusma (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Keep N (math) - is of course what you want to write, but nobody except a few geeks like me knows how to enter that in a keyboard. BFG (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hence field norm is possibly a better target. —Kusma (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree, field norm is way more esoteric than natural number and would help very few people in finding what they actually search for. But I would not oppose a disambiguation page. BFG (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That would be N (disambiguation)#Mathematics. I would be ok with retargetting there. —Kusma (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Added field norm to the disambiguation page. I was not aware of that page before. I'm not sure if we should keep a link to a disambiguation page and it's quite easy to find N (disambiguation). So for that reason I changed my mind to Delete BFG (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the redirect target for is blackboard bold--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget or Delete P (math) if we want to keep this, it should be retargeted to Probability space. The current redirect makes very little sense. BFG (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    P can also be the set of primes, p an individual prime, there is the Weierstraß p-function, p-series, ... —Kusma (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are absolutely right and I'm leaning even more towards delete now. But a disambiguation page is a possibility here as well. BFG (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    P (disambiguation)#Mathematics is the natural target (a bit incomplete though). —Kusma (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, as for the same reasoning as above. I think a redirect to a disambiguation page is superfluous. BFG (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to N (disambiguation)#Mathematics and P (disambiguation)#Mathematics as perfectly fine redirects from incomplete disambiguation. If either of those is missing entries the solution is to add them. A7V2 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have added all possibilities mentioned in these discussions to the relevant disambiguation pages. There may be more. While I still think it is a bit superfluous to redirect to the relevant disambiguation pages. I do not oppose retargeting there. BFG (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looking at this again they would not be "redirects from incomplete disambiguation" but (if such a template existed) "redirects to incomplete disambiguation", not that it changes my view that there is no reason to delete for being ambiguous when a clear disambiguation section already exists. A7V2 (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, Trovatore and 64.229.88.43. Also, I think P can also be the projective space.--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget per A7V2. Plausible search terms that can be easily disambiguated, despite the unusual provenance. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:CHG[edit]

I really, really can't think of a way to abbreviate exactly what phrase this redirect is. Q𝟤𝟪 07:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment this was created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Changelog, which was intended as a list of major changes to Wikipedia policy, process and guideline pages. A good idea that never got off the ground - it had only two entries from December 2005 when it was userfied to User:Radiant!/Changelog and the title redirected to What Wikipedia is not following a 2019 MfD. The shortcut was changed at the same time to avoid a double redirect, the edit summary citing WP:CHANGELOG and WP:NOTCHANGELOG (which have pointed to WP:NOT since 2012 and 2011 respectively). Getting off topic, but the idea of a changelog has recently been resurrected as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete and free the name for future use by the revival, if needed. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Change since "CHG" is a plausible abbreviation for "change". NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Change is already pretty short. This will be less clear than just typing the name, so the value added might be negative. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete It is not an intuitive abbreviation. "CLOG" or "CHLOG" would be better for the Change Log, so no on retargeting. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. No good reason for deletion. It's fine for shortcuts to just not get used much. It happens. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't see the point in the 2019 changes. WP:NOT says nothing about changelogs, but while I guess you can imply WP:NOTCHANGELOG, it seems silly to me to also usurp other pages for that purpose. In the interest of not burying history, I'd say move User:Radiant!/Changelog back to Wikipedia:Changelog and retarget WP:CHG and WP:CHANGELOG there. That way there can be some kind of foundation in case the new changelog Thryduulf is hinting at ever comes to fruition. This also clearly illustrates for anyone looking for a Wikipedia changelog that one did get started but it's just historical, so they need not keep looking. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magnesium-L-threonate[edit]