Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Administrator instructions

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussionEdit

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

The guiding principles of RfDEdit

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

When should we delete a redirect?Edit

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deletingEdit

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.)
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:.) Speedy deletion criterion R2 may also apply.
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title 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 it needs to be deleted to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deletingEdit

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirectsEdit

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notesEdit

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussionEdit

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current listEdit

July 8Edit

Dirty DonEdit

Delete per WP:RFD#D3. Momo824 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Erminia BianchiniEdit

Delete. One of many women to have been the oldest known person in Italy (5 different women have claimed that "title" in just the last 13 months). Just not notable enough for a redirect and given her recent death, likely never will be. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete No justification for retaining a redirect to a non-notable person who won't be searched for by anyone except longevity fans who already have more than enough information at Gerontology Wikia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mentioned at the target and there isn't anyone else notable with the name so the redirect is harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. GiantSnowman 10:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per GiantSnowman. pbp 12:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Dumitru ComănescuEdit

Delete. Not mentioned in target article and not notable enough to warrant a redirect elsewhere. Just one of many who claim to be the oldest (fill in the blank). Newshunter12 (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete No justification for retaining a redirect to a non-notable person who won't be searched for by anyone except longevity fans who already have more than enough information at Gerontology Wikia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Provița de Jos where there is sourced mention of him. There is nobody else notable with this name so a redirect is harmless but information will last longer at the proposed target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and update article or retarget as above. GiantSnowman 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per GiantSnowman. pbp 12:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cape Verdean SpanishEdit

Content fork of Cape Verdeans in Spain with a confusing title: sounds like a dialect of Spanish. Slashme (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - page has existed since 2007. Unless there is something more confusing going on, it looks like this was the original title of the page, and Cape Verdeans in Spain was just created in June 2020. I don't find it hard to believe that someone looking for information on Cape Verdeans in Spain might look for "Cape Verdean Spanish", as a sort of compound nationality (like Italian American). So, I don't think this does any harm. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cape Verdeans unless anyone can find more sources to demonstrate the notability of this specific topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore article: as El Cid points out, the "content fork" is the other way round, and it's not so much a content-fork as it is a standard cut-and-paste move. Just revert that, and if the title of the article is deemed confusing, then it can be renamed, though I'm not sure this would be a good idea: "Cape Verdeans in Spain" should strictly speaking refer to Cape Verdean citizens who live in Spain, whereas the article is about Spanish citizens who are of Cape Verdean ancestry. Though which of the two is the article actually about? Is either of the two topics notable? – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore article per Uanfala. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore article I would say Restore the article to something more reverted. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Mount Washington (Massachusetts)Edit

This target might be correct, but the article mentions "Washington Mountain" rather than "Mount Washington", and there is a Mount Washington (Berkshire County, Massachusetts) (which might be the same place), as well as Mount Washington (Middlesex County, Massachusetts), listed at List of peaks named Mount Washington. I would suggest retargeting Mount Washington (Massachusetts) to List of peaks named Mount Washington, and creating Mount Washington (Berkshire County, Massachusetts) to point to October Mountain State Forest if that's geographically correct Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:International Space StationEdit

Pretty ambiguous redirect for those who will use this as an alias of {{ISS modules}}. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a {{R from move}} and currently has 6 transclusions. Is there any evidence that anybody is actually using the wrong template? Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    Let me investigate.   Done. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    It had six transclusions, five of which were not on the article (I have removed the article and category transclusions, therefore the redirect has 4 transclusions). Maybe disambiguate the redirect a la Template:Cv? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have drafted a disambiguation tag below the redirect. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Template disambiguation pages are quite rare—see Category:Template disambiguation pages. I would prefer to either see this kept as an {{R from move}} or deleted, since the transclusions have been dealt with. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Samwise DidierEdit

Not mentioned at target article. Was formerly an article that was redirected due to notability and BLP issues. No one good target, as the only mentions on enwiki are at a dab page and brief mentions on a large number of game and album articles stating Didier designed the cover art. Hog Farm Bacon 02:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Restore article and send to AfD. RfD should not be used to determine the notability or otherwise of article subjects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

German ChristiansEdit

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

July 7Edit

Akokra NanaEdit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

E numberE216Edit

Weird bot creation, prob(ot)ably accidental. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Comparative morphologyEdit

Retarget to Evolutionary physiology, which is what comparative morphology entails and is a subset of. Another article of this sort is Comparative physiology, and there may be others. We probably need some merging. There are really only two topics here: the study of evolutionary relationships as evidenced by physiological morphology, between earlier and later life forms that appear to be related, such as fossil amphibians and modern salamanders; and the study of differences between and similarities among contemporary organisms [related or not], such as primates and felids.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's at Comparative Anatomy to begin with, because I've always known it as Comparative morphology. Never heard of this new-fangled (?) term Evolutionary physiology, but then again, I've been out of the loop for a decade or two. Still, I lean towards for keeping as-is, until I investigated this issue more. Amphioxys (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  • -> Comparative morphology First of all Anatomy is a subset of Morphology mostly concerning itself with macroscopic and internal structures and organs, including their placement and function with regards an organism's body functions, and especially of interest to medical/veterinarian applications. Morphology is concerned with the different forms that bodily structures can take and their relationship with corresponding organs in other organisms. So I would unequivocally vote for having the article moved to Comparative morphology. With regards to Evolutionary physiology, despite its obvious overlap, this is an different field of study, focusing more on the evolutionary processes shaping bodily structures. The differences may seem subtle, but clear enough in my eyes. Amphioxys (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment whatever target we decide may need a hatnote for the linguistics meaning (though the biology meaning is the clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by reliable-source usage and incoming links). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't like multiple relists, but as such, we're headed to the sort of no-consensus close that pleases no one. Some discussion questions: is there a more specific place for the linguistic topic than Morphology (linguistics)? Given the inherent ambiguity of the base term, would retargeting to the disambiguation page at Morphology do any good?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Reiwa collapseEdit

Although the coronavirus and resulting economic shocks are occurring in the Reiwa era by the Japanese reckoning, these phrases are unattested outside of Wikipedia and are unlikely English-language terms for the coronavirus recession. (The only mention of Reiwa at the target article is in the name of a typhoon.) --BDD (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

PFTAWBLQPZVEMU-DZGCQCFKSA-NEdit

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  • These terms do come up next to "Catechin" in various Scholar search results. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rosguill's research shows that these terms aren't just gibberish. Are they likely/meaningful search terms?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

NarasimharajaEdit

Keep Narasimharaja (Vidhan Sabha constituency) and Delete rest. Italawar (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree that the article Narasimharaja is not very useful, and should be deleted. But somebody may have a vested interest in that article. I am fine with it even if that link remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.47.28.8 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all, considering that I see them all as potential alternative spellings for their target, and the nomination has not explained why one redirect should remain while the others are deleted, so I have to assume its personal preference as opposed to claiming that the other redirects aren't helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all to avoid unnecessary expansion of the parallel articles Italawar (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Văn QuânEdit

Delete

  • Redirect was originally created by mistake, since the correct name of the place in "Văn Quan", not "Văn Quân"
  • In this case, "Văn Quân" cannot be considered an alternate spelling either. 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @A7V2: Văn Quân means Wenjun, but then it is also part of many other Chinese people's names (for example Yu Wenjun (Dữu Văn Quân [vi])) so it doesn't make any sense to retarget to the article about the poet (which is only one of them). In fact, enwiki currently has articles about many people named Wenjun, you can find them here, so the ideal solution is to create disambiguation page Wenjun listing all the people named Wenjun, and retarget Văn Quân to that page. However, I don't know whether such a disambiguation is valid 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @30ChuaPhaiLaTet: If the page lists only people with the same name then it's not technically a disambiguation page but a set index article (in practical terms there is essentially no difference other than the categories its in) but the are valid. See Wikipedia:Name pages#Lists of people for advice. I'd draft one myself but don't have time today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Helen StetterEdit

Delete all, since none are old enough to any longer be on their respective lists or any other longevity list on Wikipedia. Not mentioned in other articles. Removing redirects to nowhere is routine maintenance. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all No justified reason for retaining redirects to non-notable people who won't be searched for by anyone except longevity fans who already have more than enough information at Gerontology Wikia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget Nijiro Tokuda to Kawanabe, Kagoshima where they are mentioned. Delete the other two as not mentioned anywhere in article space. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFPEdit

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

MagitEdit

Not mentioned at the target page, or rather, not mentioned at the target page anymore, see diff. Tea2min (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It does get an entry at Comparison of Git GUIs but that's not enough to anchor a redirect. If the redirect deleted, the see also section at fugitive.vim should also be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's also a surname, and the Magits was a group (we have no articles). Let the search tool do its job. Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jabal GhumaylahEdit

Not mentioned at the target section. This was created as a stub about a hill in the Emirate. In 2017 DrStrauss (talk · contribs) (since blocked) redirected it "to nearest article which could use it".[1]Fayenatic London 09:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Not mentioned at target. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete not connected --Devokewater (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore article without prejudice to a merge or AfD. RfD should not be used to delete article content that has never been discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Daniel DorEdit

delete, it redirects to a different person. There is also a Daniel Dor. Shilton (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep He might be called Dor Daniel. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Throat gaggingEdit

Profane slang, could just as well refer to the gag reflex. Hog Farm Bacon 03:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

BonjwaEdit

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I do remember Bonjwa from my StarCraft-watching days, but it doesn't look like we have any relevant information about him, and thus I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment by creator What do you mean "him"? I don't think you're thinking about the same bonjwa - I was pertaining to the title inofficially awarded to SC pros who have been successful for a very long time, such as BoxeR and Flash. Here are some notability examples: [2] [3] [4] Gaioa (T C L) 20:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Gaioa, y'know, I could have sworn there was a player by this name. My bad. Do you think a sourced mention could be added to the article? signed, Rosguill talk 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Maybe. I'm not home RN and can't really edit properly, but if the redir can wait a day or two I'll fix it. Gaioa (T C L) 15:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment since it's not a StarCraft-exclusive term (see e.g. [5]), sourced mentions could be added to multiple articles, so it's sort of a WP:XY problem. Seeing as it's a real word with its own entry in the Standard Korean Language Dictionary, but probably not a WP:NOTABLE topic, I think the best outcome would be a soft redirect to wikt:본좌 (the original form of the term in Korean) - but first I have to go create the Wiktionary entry, since it doesn't exist yet. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wug·a·po·des 02:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I added a reference to Bonjwa at the Starcraft page. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RWEdit

Consider changing to WP:REDWARN; (Context: Redwarn is a fairly new counter-vandalism tool; initial discussion over this redirect came from a discussion over changing the edit summary to use something like RW to be less intimidating and more in line with Twinkle (TW) and Huggle (HG).) Pageviews look to be about 100 monthly with Researching Wikipedia, vs. closer to 2100 with Redwarn. None of the other pages linked in the hatnote right now look to be close enough and popular enough to justify the redirect. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • As the creator of RW redirect I have no objection to retargetting to a more popular page, just make sure there is a see also hatnote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Checking what currently links to WP:RW, there are 43 pages that use this redirect. Of these 43, 1 out of 3 article talk pages are archived and 4 out of 15 pages are in the Wikipedia namespace and its associated talkspace are archives. The rest are in userspace. Retargeting to RedWarn shouldn't cause too much trouble, and WP:Researching Wikipedia could be given a new redirect like WP:RESEARCHWP. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as is; changing established shortcuts is harmful. Since the creation of WP:RedWarn the pageviews haven't changed altogether too much, indicating that RedWarn's existence isn't enough to use this shortcut. J947messageedits 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. We should always be very conservative when changing shortcut redirects as breaking old links and old references can be very harmful. In this case the shortcut has pointed to its current target since 2007, has a not insignificant number of links and a consistently large number of page views that haven't noticeably changed since creation of RedWarn. The small benefit of a slightly shorter shortcut will not outweigh the breaking of existing links and confusion added to old discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. There's already a hatnote at the current target linking to RedWarn. Please don't break links in old discussions. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 11:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

* Dab, as there are two popular topics. --PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•AC) This message was left at 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom, who makes a convincing case. I don't see the issue with retargeting so long as there is a hatnote in place. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • No issue apart from breaking links and introducing confusion and ambiguity to discussions (old and going forwards) where none currently exists you mean? I firmly disagree that the nominator has made a convincing case that any benefits from retargetting will outweigh all the harm it will cause. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, it's a good thing we have context...and hatnotes! I find it much more valuable as a convenient shortcut for a popular page over preserving a scattering of links for potential wiki-archeologists on an obscure topic (with thanks to LittlePuppers for demonstrating that). -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Out of curiosity I just did a spot check of half a dozen random user and article talk pages - one was a link here, one was a link to Researching Wikipedia, and two each were typos to WP:EW and WP:RS. I can't say for sure that that's representative (although it could be, with the keys next to each other and 20 and 500k links to EW and RS, respectively), just thought I'd bring it up. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Going through in more detail (mostly to satisfy my own curiosity, and because there really aren't that many):
      • 9 to Researching Wikipedia (~5 from Piotrus above)
      • 9 to WP:RS
      • 5 to WP:EW ("revert warring" -- not entirely sure on 2 of these, but it seems to be the best fit)
      • 1 to WP:RM (somehow?)
      • 9 from shortcut indices
      • 4 from links to this discussion
      • 1 from Researching Wikipedia itself
      • 4 from this page, subpages, and transclusions
      • And that only adds up to 42 so evidently I missed one somewhere
    • LittlePuppers (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, changing to Keep as it is for now until RedWarn becomes more popular. PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•AC) This message was left at 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Half-strong keep I would like this to be redirected as it is, but it can have a high-medium chance of having some pages, articles, and companies with the same stuff. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

American expansionismEdit

Both originally redirected to United States territorial acquisitions, but American expansionism was retargeted to Territorial evolution of the United States by User:Deisenbe in January 2019. They should point to the same target. Paul_012 (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

AP.comEdit

ap.com website has nothing to do with associated press, and their 2 websites are ap.org and apnews.com so the redirect should be deleted. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Audio Precision and Associated Press have nothing to do with each other. Narky Blert (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Spongebob Squarepants Complete ListEdit

Waaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2006, the ambiguous Complete list was deleted, yet this one has survived all those years since this. It doesn't seem to get very many pageviews (only 49 since July 2015), maybe since it's also ambiguous (though there's some disambiguation here) and can also refer to the List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters (although I'm not 100% sure about retargeting there) or another list of stuff that might be better left for the SpongeBob wikis. As such, I suggest we delete this, although I'm also open to it being retargeted wherever appropriate. Regards, SONIC678 01:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. An exact search at DuckDuckGo only shows the Wikipedia redirect in the results. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 01:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Good find. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Westward expansionEdit

Westward expansion and Western Expansion previously redirected to Territorial evolution of the United States and United States territorial acquisitions, but were changed by IP editors in June 2018. Are the terms exclusive to American history? If so, they should be changed back to either of the previous targets. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm adding Westward Expansion, Western expansion and several related redirects with differing targets to the discussion. The westward/western expansion redirects should point to the same target, and likewise for the rest. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

US space programEdit

Accept draft at US space program

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_26#Space_programme_of_the_United_States Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete to allow accepting the draft at Draft:US space program - probably qualifies for G6 --DannyS712 (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. When the draft is accepted the redirect will be speedily deleted per WP:G6 at that time. There is no need or benefit to deleting before the draft is ready. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep NASA is in charge of program. If draft gets accepted speedy the redirect. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep – Some editors are backlashing my draft anyway. When the draft will be reviewed, the redirect will be speedied as housekeeping. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Silas (football manager)Edit

Redirect to Silas (disambiguation) or Silas (name). This is not the only football manager known by this mononym, there's also Silas (Portuguese footballer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:e187:5f00:3c53:7ddb:b6be:8dfc (talkcontribs) 16:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Silas (name) per nom (1st choice), specifically to the "People" section, which lists both managers (and other footballers), and where I recently retargeted the related Silas (footballer) (and later reverted to wait to see how the discussion will play out). If that doesn't work, we can also retarget to the other page suggested by the nom (2nd choice), per Narky's argument below. Regards, SONIC678 16:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC), updated 04:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Silas (name) per SONIC678. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget as above per Narky Blert below, and include a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. —2pou (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Silas (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, most certainly not to Silas (name). Ambiguous (i.e. bad) links to DAB pages get found and fixed. Most links to name pages do not. Certes and I ran a project in 2019 to fix bad links to name pages in a very specific subject area. We found and fixed 1500. Some of those errors had been there for more than a decade. We repeated it last month. We found and fixed another 100, all new.
Silas (footballer) should be retargetted to Silas (disambiguation) for the same reason. Mononyms fall under {{hndis}}. Narky Blert (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Not really bothered, but Silas (name) is the obvious choice. The point above about "links to name pages don't get fixed" is nonsense - fix it. GiantSnowman 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different retargeting options presented...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Talkng to MyselfEdit

Implausible typo. I suggest deletion or a retarget to Talking to Myself which is a dab page. CycloneYoris talk! 04:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not a common enough typo to warrant a separate redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to dab page as harmless and useful. J947messageedits 04:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

NerdviewEdit

The target article has been tagged for over a year "This article is missing information about nerdview (which redirects here)...". Without an explanation, redirecting "nerdview" here is confusing, so delete because enwiki has nothing about the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  • A mention has now been added to the target, although I'm not sure how due it is. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Nerdview means professional deformation. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

July 6Edit

Hornet InterceptorEdit

Delete unless someone can find a new target; it is not mentioned here. Of the WP:Broken redirects to this page, this is the only one that didn't have its own history, and it was {{cn}} tagged for being unreferenced when it was listed. -- 2pou (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Hornet (disambiguation). 122.61.86.240 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hornet (disambiguation) or disambig. while the Star Wars use is the clear primary topic, both the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and Hawker Fury are aircraft known as "hornets" that perform(ed) interceptor roles and do sometimes get called "Hornet interceptor", and its plausible other military aircraft listed at the dab page are too - however this is not apparent from the dab page so a separate one may be justified. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

List of minerals (complete)Edit

The use of "complete" is misleading, considering that Wikipedia is, and will always be, a work in progress. That, and the target lists could change at any time, meaning that their current state is not complete ever. In addition, please see Talk:List of minerals approved by IMA#Requested move 30 January 2020 for further context. (Also, at the present time, these redirects do not have any incoming "(article)"-namespace links.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Keep all per K4 as {{R from page move}}s (courtesy link for others) that aren't ambiguous. This redirect on its own received 11 pageviews last month and I suspect the other redirects posit similar figures J947messageedits 23:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • "...aren't ambiguous"? See List of minerals (versus List of minerals approved by IMA and is alphabetically organized list pages.) And who is to say that the "IMA" is the only source of determining what is "complete"? ... which is a claim that comes with advocating to keep these redirects as unambiguous? Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    ...That, and the linked move discussion actually supports the deletion of these redirects. One editor agreed that the use of the "(complete)" disambiguator to describe these list articles was misleading, and other than the anon editor who chimed in suggesting a "(Total)" disambiguator, no editors supported retaining the use of the "(complete)" disambiguator and agreed that the disambiguator should be removed. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is always a work in progress, and will never be complete. In other words, the use of the word "complete" anywhere in an article's name (unless part of a proper name) is about as accurate and useful as having the word "other" as the first word of an article title. Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I personally think that as an unlikely search term these redirects' views are mostly from people looking for the current target articles and thus should be kept even if incorrect, but I undrstand this is a view not shared by many. J947messageedits 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's misleading to have a redirect that says "complete" to a list that explicitly says it's not complete. -- Tavix (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all (1st choice, especially the ones following the format of "A–B"), since Wikipedia is constantly a work in progress, and there are most likely minerals that have yet to be discovered. For the others that don't follow that format, if they're worth keeping by any chance, weak retarget them to List of minerals (2nd choice, the most suitable alternative target I could find), putting the letter ones at the appropriate sections. Then again, the term "complete" is potentially misleading, as it's a list of minerals on Earth, and that list keeps being updated throughout the very many years. Regards, SONIC678 01:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Procedural close – I would !vote all of them "delete" if it is not a WP:TRAINWRECK. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • ...Yeah, can't say this will be a WP:TRAINWRECK, so best not breathe that into existence. (WP:BEANS) All the redirects have the same issue as identified in my nomination statement and do not individually target different random, unrelated targets. Steel1943 (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Soumya-8974: just because a lot of redirects are nominated, it doesn't mean that the nomination is automatically a WP:TRAINWRECK. Please at least read what you are citing; the first sentence of that is A nomination of a group of related pages for deletion or renaming which fails due to the disparate nature or worth of the pages. That obviously does not apply to this nomination. J947messageedits 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom--Devokewater (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom and as ambiguous. Could also refer to Mineral (nutrient). Narky Blert (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all ambiguous and misleading. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of complete knowledge. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Discoverers of the AmericasEdit

This redirect should link to a more appropriate place that references the multiple native settlements and European voyages to the Americas. For instance, the pages European colonization of the Americas or Settlement of the Americas would be an appropriate target. The latter already has the redirects Discovery of the Americas and Discovery of America. Here is a full list of redirects currently to Voyages of Christopher Columbus that should be changed:

Best, -- ɱ (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

And we may need to reevaluate what is linked from all of these. For instance, the article Silver uses "which Roman miners produced on a scale unparalleled before the discovery of the New World". This is antiquated, as Europeans did not discover the land already familiar to humans and settled since long ago. ɱ (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

AKKKPGEdit

Unlikely search term. Song is never referred to as such. Google search for the abbreviation comes up empty. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion: It is a useful redirect. A short abbreviation instead of typing full name, to reduce time consumption. Empire AS Talk! 04:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. See WP:MADEUP. Redirects are most definitely not for promoting your ideas; this is an encyclopedia, not an advert. Unused abbreviation outside of here. J947messageedits 05:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per J947. Further, Empire AS's comment "If it will be on Wikipedia then other search engines would also show it" offends against both WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. Narky Blert (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Above users are right. Completely made up. 1.38.164.204 (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Run (upcoming TV series)Edit

As per precedence in several archived discussions in WP:RFD: Target subjects no longer upcoming, thus the redirects should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. To be fair, at least this Hamilton movie was still upcoming at the time of the nomination before the current COVID-19 pandemic uprooted studios' plans (thus the Hamilton one would have been appropriate right now had that pandemic not taken place), but it'll suffice to say that these works have already been released, so these five redirects have pretty much outlived their usefulness. Regards, SONIC678 22:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. Free them up for any future series or films of the same names. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

HamilfilmEdit

Unnotable madeup WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I probably should've cited a source there, but #Hamilfilm or #HamilFilm was a widely trending hashtag about the film, and Hamilfilm is pretty popularly used to casually refer to the film. Definitely not made up. BanjoZebra (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@BanjoZebra: Fair enough. I revised my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete not called Hamilfilm. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep very, very widely used to refer to this film making this is a highly plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hamilton (2021 film)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Vanangamudi (2018 film)Edit

Film (subject of target page) not yet released. 2017 and 2018 are failed WP:CRYSTAL. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Tiny carEdit

WP:OR. No such official designation exists. Maybe redirect to Tiny (car)? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Microcar has never been an official designation, it's a description that has only become popularised and widely accepted in the last 40 years or so. For the less well informed visitor, "Tiny car" is probably quite a useful redirect and you will find that somewhat imprecise description used in countless media articles over the years to describe cars which are smaller than the norm and I will happily provide references if required. A hat note would better serve those looking for the very obscure cyclecar brand Mighty Antar (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply. "cars which are smaller than the norm" can apply to subcompacts, superminis, etc. So maybe you would have a (tiny) leg to stand on if it were "Tiniest car", but your own definition doesn't fly. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Official designation? We do not require a man in a bowler hat to use such common English words. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply. You can use common words any way you please. Just don't equate them to other terms here without sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply. As I did say previously, I can provide sources - Classic Cars (magazine) Feb 1992 "Classic Motoring Years – tiny cars of the 50s" - an article exclusively about "Microcars". Three Wheeler News Feb 1961 "Tiny car with a big heart" - the NSU Prinz. Prior to the 1970's the only place you will find the term Microcar applied exclusively to what we now think of as microcars is in one specific magazine. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vague--Devokewater (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Being colloquial is not a reason to delete, and nor is not being an official name (in fact it is policy that articles don't even need to be an official name!). This is clearly a plausible search term but is arguably a bit ambiguous. Perhaps another hat note or two on Microcar? A7V2 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Eastern wearEdit

A Scholar search suggests that this term could refer to types of clothing other than folk costumes. I would suggest deletion, unless someone can find a better target or a strong justification. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete no connection between the two --Devokewater (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, this can also refer to stuff in Africa, Oceania, parts of Europe, etc., which are geographically in the Eastern Hemisphere but some countries of which are culturally part of the "Western World." Whether they're Eastern or Western is a matter of debate, to say the least. Regards, SONIC678 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

South MexicoEdit

Southern Mexico was deleted at an RfD in June 2014 to make way for an article that doesn't exist yet. This redirect is synonymous. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 13:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ . The redirect Southern Mexico should be restored without prejudice. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:STATUTEEdit

Sections deleted; the redirects don't seem to make much sense any more. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nazi slave labor campEdit

Vague term with multiple meanings, could also refer to Arbeitslager, POW camps, or Wehrmacht detention sites. Too vague to disambiguate imo. buidhe 05:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Buidhe's comments suggests he or she does not know what a POW camp is. The Geneva Convention lays out how POW camps should be operated - humanely, basically. Barracks comparable to those used to house the captor country's own frontline troops. The captor country could call on POWs for work - for pay, under humane working conditions. So, not slave labour.

    Did the German military justice system operate German military personnel who committed crimes, like the US military operates military justice prisons like Fort Leavenworth? If so, those confined there would be convicts, not slaves.

    I looked at Arbeitslager. It was my impression that slave labour was employed at the camps that were primarily used for killing people, and that other concentration camps killed slaves by working them to death.

    If the SS distinguished between camps that primarily killed people and those that killed them by working them to death, that is not an argument to delete this redirect. Rather it is an argument to change its target to the brief article that explained the distinction between these kinds of Nazi camps.

    If we don't have an article that distinguishes between the different kinds of Nazi camp that used slave labour why don't you Buidhe start one? Geo Swan (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    • Were Soviet (or Polish) POWs treated according to the Geneva Conventions? Of course not. buidhe 19:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Captured Soviet soldiers were not treated according to the Geneva Conventions, and were sometimes worked to death as slave labour, because the Soviet Union was not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Buidhe, The terms of the Third Geneva Convention oblige signatories to treat the captured soldiers of other signatory nations humanely, in humanely run POW camps, run by their military.

        Captives from non-signatory countries got no protection. And soldiers captured by non-signatory countries, like the Soviet Union, were not under any Geneva Convention protections, either.

        In fact the USSR continued to employ their captives as slave labour, for years, sometimes decades, after the defeat of the Axis.

        Weren't the camps where Soviet captives were employed as slave labour run by the SS, or some other Nazi organization? That is an argument for keeping this redirect, or giving it a broader target, as I suggested above. Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as misleading, unless someone can think of a better target. As one example, the Alderney camps used forced labour but weren't concentration camps. Narky Blert (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Narky Blert, I saw a documentary on the German occupation of the Channel Islands. I paid particular attention as I have cousins who lived there during World War 2. That documentary discussed how many slave labourers who were worked to death there, by the Nazis. Nominator wants to distinguish between the Nazi camps where unwanted individuals, like jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and leftists were worked to death, and camps where most prisoners were marched straight to the gas chambers. But gas chambers and death through overwork on starvation rations were equally part of the "Final solution".
A year or two ago a scholar published a book about the history of concentration camps. Reviewers and other scholars said her book was the definitive work on the subject. The first camps called "concentration camps" were used by the Spanish, in Cuba, and other colonies, not long before the Spanish-American War. A few years later the British held Boer civilians in camps they called concentration camps, during the Boer War. Americans used concentration camps in the colonies they captured from Spain. Nazi Germany was not the first or the last country to use concentration camps.
The key element that makes a camp a concentration camp is that those held there are held there due to their identity or ethnicity - not because they stood accused of a crime.
Nominator wants to distinguish between the Nazi camps where most new prisoners were marched straight to a gas chamber, and camps where prisoners were merely brutally overworked on starvation rations. However, they both meet the scholar's definition of a concentration camp.
May I draw your attention to Alderney_camps#Two_concentration_camps? It says, "The other two camps became concentration camps when they were handed over to be run by the SS from 1 March 1943, they became subcamps of the Neuengamme camp outside Hamburg."
May I suggest that it is not the redirect that is misleading, but rather the arguments offered by the nominator. I am going to ping K.e.coffman, as your delete is merely a briefer version of Narky Blert's. Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: only serves to confuse the reader. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Nazi camps that detained PolesEdit

Misleading, while there were Polish prisoners at many Nazi concentration camps, Polish people were detained at many camps outside the concentration camp system. buidhe 04:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If there were Polish criminals who faced charges and were convicted during a trial, and served a sentence outside the Concentration Camp System, this would not be an argument for deleting this redirect.
Did the Nazis confine Poles, who weren't accused of genuine crimes, outside of the concentration camp system? Can you name even one of these Nazi detention camps that was not a concentration camp? Geo Swan (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There were millions of Polish forced laborers [6] above and beyond the hundreds of thousands in Nazi concentration camps. [7] USHMM says there were tens of thousands of places the foreign workers were forced to work, but the encyclopedia hasn't been published yet [8] For specific examples, consider than the entire Polenlager system was outside the Nazi concentration camp system. buidhe 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • You keep trying to redefine the nature of camps. Your redefinition is bogus.

      Genuine, Geneva Convention compliant POW camps were not concentration camps. Jails and prisons where convicts are held, or suspects awaiting trial are held, were not concentration camps. But all other camps, where people were held due to their ethnicity, religion, political sympathies, or sexuality, were concentration camps. Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete: it's unclear what this redirect is trying to accomplish, as the target is neither a list, nor does it specifically focuse on Polish victims. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with both the nominator and K.e.coffman; this redirect is misleading. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Dancing IsraelisEdit

This redirect is recently created and an implausible search term in this context. While the target article mentions early reports of Israelis reacting oddly to the attacks, it doesn't mention dancing. There may be possible confusion with Donald Trump's claims of having witnessed similar behavior from Arabs. Our search results for the term mostly return topics related to actual Dance in Israel, though this doesn't seem like a likely search term for that either. BDD (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Burushi languageEdit

The only Scholar results that I can find for "Burushi" refer to an ethnic group in East Africa (and one that doesn't appear to have its own ethnic language [9]); I don't see any evidence that this term refers to the Burushaski in English. Delete unless appropriate evidence can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep It is quite common in Persian-influenced cultures for a language to be named by suffixing the ethnic group or region with "-i"; consider, for example, the historical use of "Afghani" or "Pathani" to refer to Pashto, as well as the names Hindustani and Hindi. Closer to where Burushaski is spoken, Koshur is better known as "Kashmiri", and Khowar is frequently referred to as "Chitrali" (after the area of Chitral). It is thus not much of a stretch to assume that the language of the Burusho, therefore, would be alternatively named "Burushi". M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories regarding Jews or IsraelEdit

"9/11 conspiracy theories regarding Jews or Israel" was a standalone article until 2005. Such conspiracy theories generally fall into one of two buckets: Israel had some sort of general foreknowledge of the attacks, as detailed at the current target, and Israel actually was responsible for the attacks, as described at 9/11 conspiracy theories#Israel. I propose we prefer the broader place for these redirects and retarget to 9/11 conspiracy theories. While this action seems uncontroversial enough, the underlying subject matter is controversial enough that I thought discussion best. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Second Babylonian dynastyEdit

While the Kassites did come to power after the First Babylonian Dynasty, I can't find any evidence that they are referred to by this name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Bush knewEdit

This redirect was deleted following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Redirects implying Bush's direct involvement on 9/11 but recreated in February this year. Google searches for "Bush knew" relate to a whole host of things that someone prominent with this surname did or is alleged to have known (mainly, but not exclusively, George W. Bush).
From the first five pages of google hits, George w. Bush is alleged to have known: all about CIA interrogation methods/CIA torture, Harambe's mother (whether that is Harambe or not isn't clear from the snippet), the 9/11 attacks were planned, how he wanted to be remembered, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Guantanamo prisoners were innocent, he couldn't declare war on Iraq without congressional approval and other things. George Bush senior knew how to be a loyal friend, the art of the deal, he was no Reagan, not supporting the German Chancellor would be destabilising and every foreign leader in the world. Barbara Bush knew about politics and that literacy is critical to success. CIA torture and 9/11 are the only two topics that could be primary topic, but there is nothing to choose between them in terms of prominence so I think deletion is probably the best way to go, but I wouldn't object to disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging those involved in the previous discussion (who aren't blocked): @Ivanvector, BDD, Patar knight, CoffeeWithMarkets, SteveStrummer, SmokeyJoe, Champion, Eric0928, Billinghurst, Tavix, Tazerdadog, Arthur Rubin, and Snow Rise: Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I'm surprising myself, since I was a plain "delete" on this during the last discussion, and the fact that it was closed as delete should've solidified that. But I'm looking back at Patar knight's argument in particular pointing to a New York Post headline of "BUSH KNEW". It's a reasonable enough shorthand version of the topic; while the descriptive title is totally appropriate, it also means we need to give readers some leeway, since they're unlikely to type in "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" on their own. And I'm not too concerned with the ambiguity either. Sure, this could refer to any foreknowledge of anyone named Bush, but how many other such cases are encyclopedic and likely search terms? Finally, I'm looking at other redirects to the page and only see minimal access via terms with Bush's name. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep... I actually lodged no formal !vote in the previous discussion, but rather only commented on a relatively minor rhetorical point raised in the discussion, but since I've been pinged here, I'll get off the fence and give a more directly functional opinion. My take, similar to that expressed by BDD at the end of his !vote above, is that there are probably no other topics (aside from the subject of the target article) so expressly associated with this phrase in an established idiomatic fashion, which are also notable encyclopedic topics. In other words, I feel that anyone actually putting that phrase into a search query here is unlikely to be looking for anything other than the conspiracy theory in question. I think if they are using that particular phrase to try to engage with the topic, they are also likely to (at least initially) be dissatisfied with the skeptical information they find there, but that's really neither here nor there with regard to this determination. I will admit that the evidence presented (largely in the form of google hits) is not exactly a gold standard with regard to determining the semantic focus of the phrase, and that we're leveraging a certain amount of "common sense" here in deducing what those figures mean--this is clearly not ideal, but unfortunately sometimes is the nature of the beast when it comes to redirects, and I think the (admittedly minor) utility gained probably just barely suffices to make this the most pragmatic solution. It's a close call though, surely.
...or even weaker support for disambiguation Alternatively, I guess that the competing suggestion of making this a disambiguation page would be my second choice, but there my concern is that this page would just become a cache-all for every kind of conspiracy theory that exists in relation to the Bush family, and most of those topics would probably have even less justification than the current target article for being considered a presumptive meaning behind the phrase, pushing the whole situation a little closer towards outright OR.
Ultimately my take here is that there probably is some utility in keeping the page, but the issues here are notable enough that I wouldn't lose sleep over any of the three likely outcomes, deletion included. Snow let's rap 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • delete my reasoning is unchanged, it is ambiguous; maybe it is known and expected phrase from an American non-neutral PoV. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Stockholm Tunnel Rail LinesEdit

Name changed by a sockpuppet to: Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 11 Devokewater (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Name changed by a sockpuppet to: Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 17 Devokewater (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Name changed by a sockpuppet to: Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 19 Devokewater (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and discussion below. Also requested by only editor of the page. -2pou (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Devokewater: You may get a better/faster resolution for this by posting to WP:RM/TR#Requests to revert undiscussed moves -2pou (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks 2pou, I've posted it there. --Devokewater (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, Devokewater, I appear to have misled you. I didn't check these histories to realize that you had already moved the templates back to where they were supposed to be, and now you are asking that the leftover redirect be deleted... I removed that RM/TR post to avoid confusion. This is the correct place, unless you want to request a speedy CSD with Twinkle. But letting this play out, I support deletion. -2pou (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

VandalismusEdit

Delete all of these per WP:RFOREIGN. The concept of vandalism has no particular affinity with the German, Esperanto, Galician, Italian, Latin, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Danish, Dutch, French or Czech language, as vandalism is something that happens everywhere in the world. Not a very active user (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Wine vandalismEdit

The term "wine vandalism" is not explained in the target article, and the target contains no mentions about wine or any other kinds of alcoholic drinks. Not a very active user (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Not mentioned, and term seems to be ambiguous- Google hits suggest a variety of different uses for the term. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete ambiguous --Devokewater (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete this junk, honestly I didn't know "wine vandalism" was a thing before this. The article doesn't mention wineries or vineyards or any such thing, like entering the term "wine vandalism" into Google might suggest. As such, it might be better to just do without this redirect. Regards, SONIC678 20:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Digital SepltuarioEdit

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

Simple vandalismEdit

The term "simple vandalism" is not explained at the target page. In fact, the word "simple" doesn't appear at the target page at all. Not a very active user (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalismEdit

The target article contains no information about ongoing vandalism. According to the redirect's history, this redirect originally was a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (which was later moved to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.) Not a very active user (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

SpamdalismEdit

The current target contains no information about spam. Also, the term "spamdalism" is not mentioned in any Wikipedia article. Not a very active user (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

EPrix de Beijing de 2014Edit

This race in China has no strong ties with French, so no need for French redirect. Looks to be redirect from page move, but nothing link to it- so no harm in deleting it Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. SEPRodrigues moved the article to this title and then immediately back again in 2017 (possibly to create the redirect?) without explanation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Devokewater (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-sensical. In what situation would someone use de but not Pékin (French for Beijing, per thier article on Beijing).
    SSSB (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete A moção e a criação do redirecionamento foi o resultado de um equívoco meu. Na época, minha intenção era renomear o título da página sobre o referido ePrix da Wikipédia em português que estava no padrão da Wiki anglófona, mas em um ato falho acabei renomeando a página em língua inglesa, em seguida ao perceber o erro, reverti minha alteração. SEPRodrigues (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Al-KhushaymEdit

Delete. This was created as a stub about a dune in the Emirate. In 2012 user:Staszek Lem redirected it without comment.[10] It is not currently mentioned at the target page. A similar name Khushaym is a distant settlement in Saudi Arabia. – Fayenatic London 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

L2 normEdit

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Could also refer to the norm used on the space of square-integrable functions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to either Norm (mathematics)#p-norm or Lp space. Same action for Lp-norm, Lp norm, p norm, p-norm, L2-norm, 2-norm, L1 norm, L1-norm, and maybe several others, which must all have the same target. I have a slight preference for the first target, but, in any case, each possible target must be linked to the other. D.Lazard (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nobody asks for deletion, and this is not a deletion discussion, but a retargeting discussion. Moreover, the preceding RfD has been closed by following the advice of a sockpuppet, with comments of only 3 regular editors (including the nominator). So the normal action would have been a relisting rather than a closure. Nevertheless, this discussion is misplaced here, as it concerns only mathematicians, and generally mathematicians do not watch this page. So, it should be better placed at the talk page of one of the suggested targets or at WP:WPM. However, as it is here that the discussion started, it is better to not change of place, and I'll simply notify the Wikiproject Mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambig: It’s not clear to me what the best target is; the term seems to be either an Euclidean norm or a norm on L^2 space, which is a Hilbert space. This suggests the page should be a disambig page. —- Taku (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Lp space, which has the more relevant discussion. Euclidean space is a Hilbert space, so it doesn't have to be either/or. A disambig page just feels like an unnecessary extra layer for such a dicdef-y search term. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    (It occurs to me that if we want to be super-picky, what I said about Euclidean space being a Hilbert space isn't quite true. Euclidean space per se doesn't have a distinguished origin, so it's not even a vector space. But if you're thinking of it that way, it also doesn't make sense to talk about L2 norm (or any norm) on it. Anything we want to say about a Euclidean norm should be covered at Lp space. --Trovatore (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    Euclidean space is not a vector space, but Euclidean vector spaces are inner product spaces. They are normed spaces, and Hilbert spaces for the Euclidean norm, that is the norm defined by the square root of the "inner square". This norm is a L2 norm only if one has specified an orthonormal basis. D.Lazard (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Lp space. Per the above : the reasonable targets are this one and Norm (mathematics)#p-norm, and the former indeed has all the content associated to L2-norm (indeed the norm page redirects to it). jraimbau (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. The target of this redirect is presently Norm (mathematics)#Euclidean norm. I have just rewritten this section because of its confusion between Euclidean space, Euclidean vector space and   (each is a special case of the preceding). The Euclidean norm is defined on every Euclidean vector space, but is a L2 norm only if an orthonormal basis has been chosen, that allows identifying it with   So, as in general the Euclidean norm is not an L2 norm, the present redirect is wrong. Nevertheless, I have left in the section that in the case of   the Euclidean norm is an L2 norm. D.Lazard (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget. The L2 norm is a very simple norm, defined clearly at the current link. After D.Lazard's edits, the technical details discussed here are clarified, and can be clarified further if desired. --Yoderj (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have linked to Norm (mathematics)#p-norm from the current redirect target. This gives an opportunity for readers to read about the more general form if desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoderj (talkcontribs) 17:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Fudge (euphemism)Edit

Not mentioned on the article. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

JancokEdit

Not mentioned on the article. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia that I can see. Jančok seems to be a Slavic surname, but there is nobody with that name who has an article at present. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFFL. It's Indonesian (see id:Jancok), and seems to be less versatile than the F-bomb. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

FuqueEdit

Sée the RfD of fucq. We do nôt néed mocque-Frençh vèrsion of "f**k". Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

VaffanculoEdit

Not mentioned on this f***ing article. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Former WPHDEdit

WCBF is not the only station that could be considered "former WPHD"; there is a disambiguation page at WPHD that lists three other stations (WENI-FM, WQBF, and WEDG) that would be considered dome form of "former WPHD". That said, I'm not sure this is would be a common enough search term to merit even a retarget. WCQuidditch 06:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

WCB-FMEdit

None of the entries on the target dab page are called "WCB-FM" in any way; this redirect seems to be the product of a page move to a not-quite-correct title, but most page move redirects appear to be ineligible for speedy deletion criterion R3. WCQuidditch 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The search tool turned up no matches. Google turned up WCB.FM, a mixtape by de:B-Lash; we have no article. Narky Blert (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Making Waves: The Art of Cinematic SoundEdit

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

July 5Edit

ErelimEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close as wrong forum.

Template:Uw-attemptEdit

This page was created as a result of a move. Since then, very few people have used it and/or seen it (only 2 pageviews in the last 30 days as of 23:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)). What is this redirect's purpose now? PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•AC) This message was left at 23:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

TheChunkyEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per G6 and G7. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Blue Gold YellowEdit

This appears to refer to a conspiracy theory associated with the subject on a Chinese plot to undermine the US. It's not, however, mentioned at the target. I would suggest deletion unless a duly-sourced mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete unless a mention is added. There are lots of hits but they all seem to be about things that are blue and yellow/gold where "yellow" and "gold" are effectively synonyms (flags, national colours, blue-and-yellow macaw, etc) or where the words appear near each other (e.g. The dress), none of which make a good target for this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

DecaenneagonEdit

No hits on Google Scholar, not clear that this is an alternative name for the target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete – Ancient Greek postpose numerals (*nine-ten means nineteen) rather than prepose (*ten-nine means nineteen). --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Filbert Street LineEdit

While there may have been a "Filbert Street line" from the 1920s, the target article doesn't mention it and the redirect is therefore confusing because a reader will learn nothing about it, or know why they're there. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. The closest to a mention I've found is at Broad Street Station (Philadelphia) which says "Initially, trains arrived via elevated tracks built above Filbert Street." but that's not enough to anchor a redirect, even if it is/was called or known as the "Filbert Street Line". Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete A Google search of these three words, in quotes, yields no results that related to Center City Commuter Tunnel. The term Filbert Street Line was used one time in a diagram that appears page 94 of this document -- "Draft Environmental Statement, Center City Commuter Rail Connection, City of Philadelphia". September 1973. but it was not used in the text of the document. A one-time use of a term in a diagram to me does not come close to justifying the use of this term on Wikipedia. FFM784 (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark TuanEdit

The subject of this draft, Mark Tuan, has a long history of having articles moved into mainspace, and then deleted at Articles for Deletion.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Tuan.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Tuan (2nd nomination).

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Tuan (3rd nomination).

The redirect has now been protected, and this draft has been submitted with a statement that the subject satisfies musical notability based on having charted in China. I have not read the reference stating that a single by the subject charted in China, and cannot read Chinese. I was prepared to accept the draft based on good faith. I will let the community decide whether to delete the redirect in order to accept the draft.

Notifying closing administrators User:FreeRangeFrog, User:Kraxler, User:Jenks24. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Does QQ Music not qualify as WP:SINGLEVENDOR? I cannot remember the specific article I'm thinking of, but I'm sure I have seen charting cited to QQ Music being removed from articles before for that reason. If that is the case, I don't think WP:NMUSIC is satisfied. Alex (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Since the previous submissions, and rejections, of a Wikipedia page for Mark Tuan, the latest draft Draft:Mark Tuan has shown the developments of notability outside of Got7 and his solo works which have increased since 2018, especially given his status as a solo artist in China from the beginning of 2020 with two singles charting in major Chinese music platforms: QQ Music, KuGou, Kuwo, and NetEase Cloud Music on which he has charted and has received gold certification for his first single. His music has also been available worldwide on iTunes and Spotify to which sources in the draft show a charting position. Aside from official music releases, he has a large fanbase across the world, particularly in China as evidenced within the talks of his solo career. This is why I believe he should be given an independent Wikipedia page much like five of his co-members.Tahmigot (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Mark Twain as it is a plausible misspelling. Once the community has decided about Mark Tuan's notability, the redirect will be deleted as housekeeping. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the protection has now been lowered from admin to semiprotection, so I have now substituted the rfd template onto the redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Mark Twain per Soumya. Good call. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - The proposed retargeting is just silly. Mark Tuan is the name of a notable living person, and the misspelling is sufficiently implausible so that it would be a R3 candidate. The only real question is whether he is notable separate from the band. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Mark Tuan got an average of 21 daily hits in 2019, and an average of 2020 daily hits in 2020. I doubt that one of them daily was meant to be a search for Samuel Clemens. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Accept draft. RfD doesn't really handle notability concerns that well, but if there are new claims to his notability since the last time the article was deleted, I see no reason not to have an article based on those claims. If someone in good faith disagrees, then it can be settled with another round at AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Personally, I find some sentences not neutral and some contents unnecessary ("His other roles in the group include the visual, lead dancer and sub vocalist", "of which he is a notable alumni", "Since then, Tuan has voiced his passion for the group and wanting to stay together as seven on multiple occasions", "As GOT7 have become well known internationally, they have benefitted from the vast language skills within the group, including Mark’s English since they are able to forego having translators for interviews in the US", "Tuan continues to provide support and donations through his work"). The charts provided are iTunes, QQ or NetEase, which are considered WP:SINGLEVENDOR, if I'm not mistaken. More sources are needed to prove his impact and presence on the Chinese market; his notability is increasing, but to me it's still not enough. --ChoHyeri (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Accept draft per Tavix. This is the wrong forum for assessing WP:Notability. Let him take his chances at WP:AFD. Redirecting to Mark Twain would be plain silly when Mark Tuan undoubtedly lives and breathes, it would hamper searches. Whether or not he merits an article is another question for another forum. Narky Blert (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Aryan UnityEdit

Not mentioned in the target or discussed in any depth in any other article. The mention previously in the target suggests Aryan Unity is a former name of the White Nationalist Party, but that claim isn't really supported by the current version of that article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Controlled oppositionEdit

Unlikely redirect. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • My instinct was to !vote delete, but Google shows that it is in use to mean a protest movement which is actually controlled by the government. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Unless it's actually discussed or even mentioned at the target, what's the point? --Calton | Talk 05:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Where? I don't see any mention of "Controlled opposition" on that page. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can show somewhere that actually discusses the term. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

England world cup squadEdit

This should be 'retargetted either to the most recent world cup squad or (my preference) to a list of squads or something similar. List of England national football team World Cup and European Championship squads is the best article I've found but there may be better. Of course it could refer to other world cups, but I think the FIFA world cup is primary, others should be handled by a hatnote but I don't know if there is a good target for that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Rhine leagueEdit

Is this truly the primary subject for this title? It seems like League of the Rhine or Confederation of the Rhine are more likely potential targets for people looking for "Rhine league," especially capitalized like that?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to League of the Rhine as {{R from modification}}. The only two operative words are identical. Narky Blert (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambig. The relevant google results I'm seeing are about equally split between the League of the Rhine and Confederation of the Rhine with some sports leagues and something related to League of Legends that probably isn't notable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

July 4Edit

Margaret PorteousEdit

The name "Margaret Porteous" is sometimes identified as the first person recorded to have died in the plague outbreak, but this trivia is not currently discussed in the article and has not been for a decade. Consequently, it is just a surprise dead-end for anyone who searches for this term. Unless the term "Margaret Porteous" can be added to the target article with acceptable sourcing, the redirect is useless and should be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

IPhone 9Edit

This redirect has a long history of being problematic. It was first created in September 2017 as a redirect to iPhone X as a {{R from incorrect name}}. In October 2017, it was boldly retargeted to iPhone, then subsequently retargeted back to iPhone X as a result of this November 2017 RfD. After another series of bold retargeting to iPhone XR, the redirect was deleted in an October 2018 RfD. It was recreated in September 2019 with iPhone XS as the target, then deleted via WP:G4.

In its current form, the redirect was recreated again in October 2019 with iPhone XS as the target. It was then boldly retargeted several times, variously to iPhone#Models, a now-deleted disambiguation page, and now currently to iPhone SE (2nd generation). In my view, this redirect is inherently problematic because there is no phone called the iPhone 9, and a redirect to any one device may be confusing to readers. The one target I may understand is iPhone#Models, but I see no reason to diverge from the result of the October 2018 RfD that deleted this redirect. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to iPhone#Models. Given that there is an iPhone 8 and an iPhone 10 (albeit stylised iPhone X) this is a very plausible search term - as the repeated recreations demonstrate. As there is no model by this name, we should point the searcher at the list so they can find the model they are interested in and/or learn that there was no model 9 rather than be left perplexed about why we don't have an article about it. The last RfD only had a delete outcome because nobody could agree which target was best but agreed it wasn't the then current one - that close was understandable but resulted in something that was clearly unsatisfactory and a bad deal for readers. After this discussion concludes, the redirect should be protected to prevent further undiscussed retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no such phone so I agree with Mz7 that any redirect is potentially misleading, even one to iPhone#Models. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    • How would a redirect to the list of models be misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - so such phone, quite misleading. Ed6767 talk! 23:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Dab as there are many interpretations of this. PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•AC) This message was left at 00:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    • What would you put on the dab page that will differ from the list of models? Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete along with Iphone 9, it's alt-capitalized sibling. -- ferret (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • To all those !voting delete. This is consistently getting 250 hits a month. That's extremely high for a redirect and so very clearly this is something people are looking for. We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a redlink is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting the redirect and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to iPhone#Models or better yet to List of iOS devices#iPhone. This is a plausible search term as Thryduulf has correctly pointed out and I don't understand how can someone get confused if this redirects to a list of models (where there is a clear description of each iPhone model). Also, we should avoid deleting this if it will eventually get recreated by some random user as it has many times in the past. CycloneYoris talk! 01:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget back to IPhone X. Those who are finding for an "iPhone 9" are probably searching for the iPhone that succeeded the iPhone 8 series, which is iPhone X. I don't see how that is misleading or confusing, seeing that Windows 9 redirects to Windows 10. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 01:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    The iPhone X actually wasn't the successor to the iPhone 8—in an unusual release, it was released alongside the iPhone 8. If you are looking for the successor to the iPhone 8, another candidate for that would be either iPhone XS or iPhone XR (both also released alongside each other), but this whole thing is so contrived and ambiguous that the best solution is most likely to just redirect to a list of all the models (iPhone#Models) and let the reader decide what they're looking for. Mz7 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. I appreciate the effort the nominator took to demonstrate how harmful the redirect has been over the years, especially since it was recreated. I see no reason to differ from the previous result, and I especially echo BDD's rationale there: "Incorrect name for several different topics. I'm not crazy about redirecting to the list section without further context; that seems to imply it's a valid name for at least one list item." -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I appreciate Tavix's highlighting of my previous argument, and I stand by it. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

BatDREdit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this redirect was to help people who know about Bendy and the Dark Revival’s alternate name, BatDR, get to the BatDR section in the Bendy franchise section Written by MrRobloxDev lgjavajr 11:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Tentatively delete per WP:VG/LEAD, this abbreviation could be confusing to people outside the Bendy fandom, and plus Bendy and the Dark Revival exists, which I recently retargeted to the section MrRobloxDev Igjavajr mentions. Then again, I'm wondering if it might be useful enough to be worth keeping... Regards, SONIC678 16:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Scottish GaelsEdit

Retarget to Gaels. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 16:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. "Gaels" is an ethnicity, not a language. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Gaels/ScotsEdit

WP:XY Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, definitely a WP:XY as most Scots during the last several centuries have not identified as Gaels. (t · c) buidhe 16:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Buidhe. Narky Blert (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per others above. Glades12 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment it would not surprise me if this is an exact formulation with some specific individual meaning. However, no matter how hard I try, Google "helpfully" shows me results that are not exact matches but anything that happens to list Gaels and Scots in that order (e.g. a book called "Picts, Gaels and Scots" that gets cited in about half a dozen different ways). Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

DachauEdit

A German-speaking IP editor has been edit-warring this redirect to point to Dachau, Bavaria instead of Dachau concentration camp, so it might be worth establishing consensus. Along with the two main dabs, there are some minor ones listed at Dachau (disambiguation). (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Dachau concentration camp (its original target). The concentration camp gets more than ten times as many pageviews as the town. It is not a WP:PTM issue, because the camp is frequently called "Dachau" on its own, eg "He survived Dachau". (When the article on the town was located at "Dachau", many of the incoming links intended the camp as a target). The vast majority of Google Books results for "Dachau", including all of the first thirteen, refer to the concentration camp, under such titles as "Dachau 29 April 1945: The Rainbow Liberation Memoirs", "The Bitter Road to Dachau", and "Dachau: The Harrowing of Hell" (e.g. not listing "concentration camp" in the name.) Therefore a primary redirect is appropriate. (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst it was a dab yesterday, I resolved Dachau's incoming links. Results:
Making Dachau a disambiguation page again might be reasonable. Certes (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore original target (Dachau concentration camp) per buidhe with a hatnote to the dab page. Very clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Until the day before yesterday Dachau contained the article of the city and linked to Dachau concentration camp and Dachau (disambiguation), which lists the other objects. So your "original target" ist just wrong. Dachau ist the main topic, the KZ (that undoubtlty has ists big history value) has to have its own topic. Moving Dachau, Bavaria back to Dachau (with the disambiguation link) is the reasonable action to take.--91.37.127.98 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dachau concentration camp as the undoubted WP:PTOPIC in English. Most readers won't even know there's a town, and possibly not even which country it's in (I do - I've been on a train which mentioned it on the destination board). Hatnote as {{redirect|Dachau|other uses|Dachau (disambiguation)}}. Narky Blert (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dachau concentration camp, clearly the primary topic. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I hear where the German IP is coming from. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. We disambiguate Folsom even though most Americans not living in California think of Folsom State Prison (Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison, "Folsom Prison Blues"). How would the 72,000 residents of Folsom, California, where the median home price is $624,000 and the average household income at $102,692, feel about their town being secondary to its prison? The prison at San Quentin is the primary topic, but San Quentin, California only has 100 residents, far fewer than the 45,000 inhabitants of Dachau, Bavaria. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore original target (Dachau concentration camp) with a hatnote to the dab page per buidhe. I don't think how the townspeople of Dachau feel is as important as the fact that the vast majority of English readers are thinking of KZ Dachau when they put Dachau into the searchbox. KZ Dachau is of far, far greater cultural importance to most English readers than the town. AmethystFloris (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

List of adjectivesEdit

This may or may not what the reader is looking for. We don't have a "List of verbs" either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

WWII concentration campsEdit

Too vague: could also refer to Gulags, Japanese internment in North America, Japanese concentration camps, etc. Not a commonly searched term so I don't see the value in disambiguation. buidhe 05:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I think there's enough here for a BCA, but for now a disambiguation page is probably the best option (the pageviews are decent for a redirect). List of concentration and internment camps would be of value if split chronologically rather than country-wise (perhaps there's value in having two lists there). J947messageedits 05:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per J947. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to concentration camps. A scholar, whose name I am blocking on, did an authoritative history of the term concentration camp. I am not sure Gulags meet the definition, but all the allied camps where foreigners from hostile countries were rounded up did meet the definition of a concentration camp. Rounded up and confined, without charge, makes it a concentration camp, so the camps for Americans and Canadians of Japanese descent were concentration camps. Geo Swan (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to concentration camps, as the most suitable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

MagwayenEdit

Could also refer to Madja-as#Death. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep, this can be resolved with a hatnote. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rosguill. CycloneYoris talk! 23:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget or disambiguate per WP:PRIMARYRED. The god is more likely than the current target to be primary by long-term significance and usage - in particular, all the Google Books hits are about the former. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

King William IIIEdit

Multiple nomination: will merge with King William IV Merge failed due to multiple edit conflicts; will discuss separately Certes (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Redirect to William III of England. Primary topic: [11]. DrKay (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore previous target of William III of England. There are three kings, but the English one seems to be a primary topic. Incoming article links: England 3127, Netherlands 588, Sicily 39. Pageviews: England 2706, Netherlands 395, Sicily 27. Certes (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore to primary subject William III of England. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

King Henry VIIEdit

Multiple nomination: will merge with King William IV Merge failed due to multiple edit conflicts; will discuss separately Certes (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Henry VII of England. Primary topic: [12]. DrKay (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore previous target of Henry VII of England. I was unsure about this one, as other kings exist, but DrKay's pageview evidence is convincing. Certes (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore to primary subject Henry VII of England. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

King Henry VIEdit

Multiple nomination: will merge with King William IV Merge failed due to multiple edit conflicts; will discuss separately Certes (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Restore previous target of Henry VI of England. The only other candidate is Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, who was styled "King of the Romans" but is not generally known as "King Henry VI". Certes (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Henry VI of England. Primary topic: [13]. DrKay (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore to primary subject Henry VI of England. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore per above. "King of the Romans" was a courtesy title; thus it was Soandso, King of the Romans, not King Soandso of the Romans. Henry VI of the Holy Roman Empire had the regnal number VI as emperor, but not necessarily as king. Narky Blert (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

King Henry VEdit

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

King William IVEdit

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

SL C5 (The Silver Arrow)Edit

This was set up by a socket puppet who vandalised and changed the names various Swedish transport related wikipages. Devokewater (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hammarby DepotEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Stockholm Local TrafficEdit

This was set up by a socket puppet who vandalised and changed the names various Swedish transport related wikipages. Devokewater (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep; this is not an uncommon translation. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is reasonable – an English translation of the Swedish name is a sensible redirect on an English wiki. /Julle (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Harmless and not ambiguous. Hog Farm Bacon 19:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Stockholm Metro StationsEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Transportation in SwedenEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Nyboda DepotEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Patriarch of RomeEdit

Should these go to the same place, or is the current setup good? The Pope is the Patriarch of Rome, and the Holy See includes his ecclesiastical sphere, but it's a good deal "larger" than that, both geographically (the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch are subject to the Pope, not coëval with him) and in scope (the Holy See functions as a state under international law, not merely as an ecclesiastical jurisdiction). Since the patriarchate is basically just ecclesiastical (nobody cares about Francis-as-patriarch except in an ecclesiastical sense), I'm wondering if we'd do better to send both to the Pope article. Or if it is important to keep the Patriarchate redirect where it is, maybe because the title of Patriarch isn't as common anymore, i.e. it's more historical, should we change the Patriarch redirect to match? But then, it is a title of the Pope. So...I'm rather confused here, and that's why I brought both to RFD instead of being bold :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Ahhh tough one, I don't know how to !vote exactly, but I'm leaning towards both being directed to the Pope article. --Micky (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest Patriarchate of Rome -> Latin Church. Patriarch of Rome -> Pope makes sense to me, but it could just as well be -> Patriarch of the West. --Amble (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Amble's first suggestions seem good. Patriarch of the West should not be used because it is now only historical. Rmhermen (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I entirely understand the nom's problem. I think the status quo is fine; there are enough links in both articles for a reader to discover subtleties of meaning. I don't agree with a redirect to Latin Church. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A majority (but not a clear consensus) is in favor of retargeting Patriarchate of Rome to Latin Church, while there's a clear consensus for keeping Patriarch of Rome as it is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Zico LewisEdit

The article does not indicate that this Bermudan footballer is know as "Zico" rather than "Zeiko", and a Google search shows a Cayman Islands footballer called "Zico Lewis" who seems like a different person. Unless this ambiguity is resolved I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Bilaspur, BiharEdit

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

SUNY footballEdit

Delete as both an unlikely search term for readers and an unlikely target (13 SUNY institutions have football teams, including 4 Division I teams, so it's very unclear why this one specific institution is highlighted). ElKevbo (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Ambiguous. Multiple schools in the SUNY system have football teams. Hog Farm (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, since multiple schools in the SUNY system have football teams. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate same issue as another RfD. --Micky (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Distinguish between D1 SUNY football teams. --Yankees999 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, implausible search term redirecting makes as much since as redirecting University of California system football to Cal, UCLA, UC Davis etc.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I would be okay with this result, as well. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this for a second time since consensus is still unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Target is broad enough to cover all SUNY schools and both "football"s. Hog Farm Bacon 19:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to State University of New York#Athletics per Tavix, which would be helpful to readers because of the context the section provides. Regards, SONIC678 19:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Space programme of the United StatesEdit

The US space program is not entirely contained in NASA; NASA is only the civilian side of the US national space program. There is also a military side (e.g. United States Space Force) and a private side (e.g. SpaceX) that was enabled by law changes in c. 1990s. Therefore, retarget this and other redirects to Category:Space program of the United States à la Space program of the United States. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

DansouEdit

These terms appear to have at one point been added to the target, but have since been contested and removed by AngusWOOF. I don't have an opinion on whether they should be included at the target, but unless we have a consensus to include it there, the redirects should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Otokonoko where it's better described. "The term otokonoko is used interchangibly with the terms josō/josōko (女装/女装子, "transvestite" or "male crossdresser") for men who dress as women" I'll add Dansou (women crossdress as men) to that term, but it should have a hatnote to Danso. Retarget Josou seme to Seme. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Dansou for Alois Dansou and Otokonoko#Dansou (which should really be spelled dansō per MOS:JA#General guidelines). A search in Google Books and News on "dansou" suggests the Japanese term is not the primary topic for this spelling. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Pharoah zoserEdit

Seems to be a WP:RFOREIGN case. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, delete the ones with accents per WP:RFOREIGN. Unsure on the rest though. Regards, SONIC678 05:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

July 3Edit

Ethnic cleansing in ChechnyaEdit

This redirect is the result of attempts to make an article heavily biased toward the Russian state POV more neutral. The article was moved to Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994) and in hindsight it was a mistake to leave behind the redirect, as it continues to perpetrate the narrative that only Russians have only ever been the victims of ethnic cleansing in Chechnya (the article was later turned into a redirect to the current target, and the redirect at issue was de-doubled by a bot). While there are several possible examples of ethnically motivated violence (the region has experienced a lot of wars), the state of the constant POV pushing on this topic means that as far as I can tell there are currently no articles on Wikipedia that document more than one at a time. I think that the redirect should be a red link until someone is brave enough to write a neutral article on this topic. signed, Rosguill talk 01:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Question would a dab page be feasible? Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    If we could get a subject matter expert, maybe, but the best I could do personally would just be to redirect to Chechen War, which lists every conflict that occurred in Chechnya and/or involved Chechens. That feels too broad, and not better than deletion IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

3E1I5S8B9RF7, the problem with that solution is that it ignores the existence of the Russian narrative; Google Scholar search results are about 50/50 for articles about the Soviet deportations and the Chechen Wars of the 90s. signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, also what do the Chechen wars have to do with ethnic cleansing at all? {{3125A|talk}} 00:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete In that case, delete until further notice. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Indusface PvtEdit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not mentioned there so I'm not sure I see the benefit. signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pretty sure similar precedents mostly went the delete way, but consensus can change, so I'm relisting this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Universal problemEdit

Not mentioned at the target, Scholar search results don't suggest that this phrase is primarily associated with universal properties. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 23:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. The answer is 42, but no-one knows what the question is now that the Earth has been destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass.
Less flippantly, this is hopelessly ambiguous. It could refer to several of the problems in Hilbert's program; but is not restricted to mathematics, and could refer to almost anything; including the very different theological and spiritual questions of the problem of evil and why are we here. Impossible to disambiguate, impossibly disparate for a WP:BCA. Narky Blert (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

NotedEdit

Delete. The motivation is apparently that Bauer owns the noted.co.nz website, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article so a reader won't be helped. Also (though this isn't a requirement for deletion), they stopped publishing in April. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target, so no useful info for anyone who follows the link. Horribly ambiguous, and nothing to disambiguate. It's bad enough editors linking to famous, legendary, various, and so on, we shouldn't offer them other vague adjectives to play with. Narky Blert (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I've fixed the omission and "Noted" is now mentioned in the target article. Schwede66 00:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:SMALLEdit

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

🍜Edit

  • According to emojipedia, this emoji is "A bowl of steaming-hot food. Depicted as Japanese ramen (noodles in broth) with chopsticks on most platforms, though it can represent a warm meal more generally." So, I do not know what should be the apprropriate redirect for this emoji. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Neel.arunabh: You left a link to the wrong entry. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to ramen This seems like the more likely meaning of this. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to ramen. This seems like a more appropriate target. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't retarget to Ramen This character is "U+1F35C STEAMING BOWL" so "bowl" is a bit broader than the meaning but "Ramen" is very significantly narrower and so will be misleading or incorrect in at least some cases - depictions vary between systems, can be ambiguous and can change over time so we should not pay much attention to that. If we have nothing that more closely matches "Steaming bowl (of food)" than "bowl" then keeping it as is is the best course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs, the article on the Unicode block, which at least tells the user the name of this character if they mouse-over it in the table. Most likely the reader is not trying to find information on steam or bowls or whatnot; they are trying to find what the character itself is. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

GoidelEdit

Goidel means Gael, not Old Irish. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Dab with Goídel Glas etc. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Retarget to Gael, as explained in that article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Gael itself is a redirect to Gaels. Goidel redirected to Gaels for nine years without interruption until a very persistent anon kept redirecting it to Goídelc, itself a redirect to Old Irish. The anon was reverted six times between December 2019 and February 2020, at which point a bot fixed the double redirect, pointing it to Old Irish before the anon could be reverted. I say speedy restore the original redirect to Gael and protect the page. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

HypersineEdit

This is incorrect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Binet's fibonacci number formulaEdit

Miscapitalization of Fibonacci. Non-useful disambiguation of Binet's formula that has the same intended target (the present target of the redirect to be deleted is not the section where the topic is described) D.Lazard (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Refine to Fibonacci number#Binet's formula (which is currently an alias for the Fibonacci number#Closed-form expression but will persist if the section is renamed or discussion of Binet's formula is moved elsewhere in the article). The miscapitalisation is completely plausible and the section deals with exactly what someone using this search term will be looking for. That another redirect exists to the same target is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Refine to Fibonacci number#Binet's formula, which must be what was intended above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, not refine. Refining does not solve the two main issues, that are the miscapitalization and the non-useful disambiguation. Also the title is not a correct term; if the disambiguation would be needed, the title should be Binet's formula on Fibonacci numbers. D.Lazard (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @D.Lazard: note I've unbolded your comment above as your opinion has already been made clear in your nomination. The miscapitalisation is completely trivial - many methods of finding Wikipedia content are case sensitive (excluding the first letter) and it is entirely plausible for someone to use all lowercase. Binet's formula on Fibonacci numbers might be a better title, but we're not dealing with titles here we are dealing with search terms and "Binet's fibonacci number formula" is an entirely plausible one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I've rebolded the comment because it helps to clarify that the nominator is opposed to refining. It's inappropriate for you to take clerking action in a situation in which you are involved, given the fact that you are so actively opposed to the action the nominator wishes to make. -- Tavix (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to revert you, but it is a principle longer standing than I've been at RfD (which is well over a decade) that the nominator does not get to make a second bolded recommendation when their nomination statement is clear. Clarifying that they stand by that statement is fine, but they do that without bolding. It's perfectly normal for someone involved in the discussion to remove bolding and/or strike (whichever is most appropriate in the given situation) whether involved or not provided they are clear about it. In this instance their nomination statement makes it clear they think it should be deleted so any second comment advocating that course of action should not include a bold to avoid double voting. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
          • There is no "second" bolded recommendation; there is only one. The nomination statement did not give any bolded action. -- Tavix (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
            • It may not have bolded any words but it is unambiguously a clear recommendation for deletion. No one user gets to make more than one of those in any single discussion whether bolded or not - you know that, why are you actively encouraging someone to disregard it? Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Refine to Fibonacci number#Binet's formula per above. I can see someone forgetting to capitalize the F in "Fibonacci," and that'll still get them to their intended target. Regards, SONIC678 13:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Natiuonal Boss DayEdit

Delete as an unlikely and overspecific typo. Gaioa (T C L) 00:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as an implausible typo. CycloneYoris talk! 01:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete this junk because of the typo (to be fair, the U key is right next to the I key on a QWERTY keyboard layout, but this use makes it look like some other language, but I don't know which) that I'm assuming might be the reason it didn't get very many pageviews since July 2015. Regards, SONIC678 04:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. However, Natuonal Boss Day should be created as a plausible misspelling. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I completely disagree, you would have to create the same for every redirect with the word "National" in it. Natuonal doesn't even exist either, and we shouldn't encourage anyone to create these unnecessary redirects. CycloneYoris talk! 06:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • So do I, vehemently. A search for "natuonal" turned up precisely one hit, an obvious typo in main text (now fixed). Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • You would not "need to" create anything. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Keep plausible fat-finger typo, harmless and well established. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Delete this unambiguous error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete typo Devokewater (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants: Bikini Bottom NightmareEdit

Back on March 25, the "Spongebob Squarepants" counterpart was deleted, but I'm confused as to whether this was a real game (per this list that J947 provided over at the last discussion, which includes that name) or WP:MADEUP (per Lazlo25's rationalization for turning the former into a redirect on the grounds that it "[was] NOT a real game!"). As such, I'm suggesting we delete these two or retarget them wherever appropriate unless a justification can be provided as to why these redirect to their current targets. Regards, SONIC678 00:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2Edit

Weezer (2017 album)Edit

Weezer did not release a (EDIT:self-titled) album in 2017, and the redirect is currently an orphan. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Super weak retarget to Pacific Daydream (a 2017 Weezer album) or delete. While Weezer did release six self-titled albums, none of them were released in 2017. Regards, SONIC678 23:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • That is true; also, their self-titled albums are disambiguated by the predominant color of the cover, not year of release (though there could be exceptions were this redirect actually used in links.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Pacific Daydream since it was released in 2017. CycloneYoris talk! 01:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Weezer discography#Albums. This is a plausible misremembering of either Pacific Daydream, Weezer (White Album) (released 2016) and Weezer (Teal album) (released 2019). As we have an article that lists all of these we should take readers to it so they can find whichever one they were thinking of. Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pacific Daydream or delete. Weezer only had one 2017 album, so this is only a valid {{R from incorrect name}} for that album. It's not a very plausible term though, given that Weezer's albums are disambiguated by color and not year, so I'm fine with deletion should that be the way the pendulum swings. -- Tavix (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Why would we expect someone to know how we choose to disambiguate these articles before they have found them? Why is it more plausible to get the name of the album wrong than to get the least significant digit of the year wrong? Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Fine, just delete it then. It's not a plausible search term to begin with, so it's not worth arguing which target may be better. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • On the contrary it seems a very plausible search term and 75 hits last year certainly backs that up. We don't need to work out which album is more plausible (I don't think at least two of the three are equally plausible) if we target the list. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no 2017 album called Weezer. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Simple I Love YouEdit

No mention of subject in the target article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Although this is apparently a song by the band, I'd say delete this redirect, because there's no mention of it in their article either on the English or Indonesian Wikipedias-not even on any of their albums' articles that exist on the latter. It also appears to have been released earlier this year, making its notability...questionable, to say the least. Regards, SONIC678 23:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Subrata roy (author)Edit

While scientists write papers, I'm not sure that the disambiguator (author) is really appropriate here. There's some other Subrata Roys with articles on Wikipedia, but none of them appear to be authors in the conventional sense. I would suggest deletion unless a justification or better solution can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Subrata Roy. All the hits for "Subrata Roy" author seem to be about the businessman whose article presently occupies the base title. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no notable people named Subrata Roy who are known as authors. The miscapitalization makes this a slam dunk. -- Tavix (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The facts disagree - the businessman is well known as an author based on all the google results about him that describe him as such. It's just his Wikipedia article considers it secondary to his notability as a businessman. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • When Wikipedia describes an author by that name, then a redirect should follow suit—not before. You have it backwards. It's puzzling that you allude to "facts" without evidence, but if you are so sure of his notability as an author, then you should have no issue citing that he is an author at his article. -- Tavix (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix's miscapitalization argument. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pandakekok9: Do you still stand by it now? Glades12 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • For clarity, I still stand by my miscapitalization argument. That's why I simply struck my delete suggestion instead of switching to retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I still stand by my delete !vote. I would have gone for keep if the last name is properly capitalized. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 09:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to the creation of Subrata Roy (author). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget koro to Subrata Roy per nom. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Huawei MarineEdit

These appear to be largely unrelated subjects; searching "Huawei Marine" online, I came across a company website where the only result related to Hengtong was a press release that they were cooperating on a project. It's not clear to me whether Huawei Marine has any connection to Huawei (and it's not mentioned at that article), so for now I think that deletion is the most appropriate course of action. signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

HasenheideEdit

I can understand that the redirected album contains a song with this name. However, this redirect is highly confusing, considering that to most people, it will be known as the recreational area in Berlin (which sadly does not have an article yet). Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Neukölln (locality) - which contains both a public park and a street of that name. I doubt that the song title merits accommodation, but if so, could be made a disambiguation instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Elmidae and tag as {{R with possibilities}}. Hatnote the target with {{redirect|Hasenheide|the song by Mogwai|Hardcore Will Never Die, but You Will}}. The song surely does not pass WP:NSONG, and likely never will.
I've added {{ill}} links to de:Volkspark Hasenheide and de:Hasenheide (Straße) in Neukölln (locality) (which needs some {{cleanup}} to comply with MOS:BOLDFACE and MOS:ITALICS). We can worry about the other entries on the German DAB page de:Hasenheide at some other time. Narky Blert (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

GdhdhghEdit

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

ESRB re-rating of MySimsEdit

This event did not happen. Despite what the old version of this page says, Sims games are still rated T, and this game in particular never was re-rated. DemonDays64 (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete The fact that it's not mentioned at the target is enough reason for deletion. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

MultilinearEdit

Suggest disambiguating, as had already been done with bilinear and as I now did with trilinear. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree, disambiguating is the best approach. Amillar (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

July 1Edit

Kill Them AllEdit

There is no mention of "Kill Them All" at the target. Investigation shows that the content was moved to Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack) in 2016, although all that is there is a single line in a very large list (the anchor there is "Kill Them All (Game of Thrones)") and I'm not certain that is the primary topic (see also #Kill Them All (film) below). Kill 'Em All (disambiguation) exists and so it might make sense to expand that and target this there. Or it might not - I'm bringing this here for discussion without a preferred course of action in mind. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this per Rosguill's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
(I think it's also a line in some versions of "Pirate Jenny".) Narky Blert (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Five-Day RevolutionEdit

While this event did indeed last five days, I can't find any evidence that it's commonly referred to this way. Searching online, the Five Days of Milan seems to be the most prominent event referred to by this name, whereas Google Scholar's top result is about the Tulip Revolution ([14]), although it's not clear to me which phase of the Tulip Revolution this paper considers to be the "five days". I searched the Ukrainian- and Russian-language versions of the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution article and didn't see any sign that they referred to it as the 5 day revolution (and in fact, the Ukrainian article lists it as only being 3-days long).

Given the above, I think that deletion may be the most appropriate, although retargeting to Five Days of Milan also seems like a workable solution. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Including all 3 options, possibly more if they exist. --Micky (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE {{3125A|talk}} 18:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this for a second time since there's no clear consensus and the advice of a sockpuppet doesn't really count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate I think the sockpuppet did bring up a good point. There are likely more than 1 revolution that lasted 5 days. Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Health care desertEdit

Delete to encourage article creation, we shouldn't be redirecting from a general term to an article about the phenomenon in the US. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and started a stub at Medical desert, which can be fleshed out with content from the US-specific article as needed. Do so with caution, literally the first sentence of the article had an extremely strongly worded claim that failed verification in the provided source. I think the article needs a closer inspection. signed, Rosguill talk 05:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Medical desert where Rosguill has started an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Medical desert per above. It's a term that could apply to many countries (especially those with remote populations), but which is generally used to refer to the US. This avoids the issue of having an article which almost entirely discusses its application within the US, with an aspiration that it be globalized, but which never occurs. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Having looked through Scholar results, I'm actually not sure that this term is primarily associated with the US; there's a lot of articles about France, African countries, and historical periods in the first few pages of results in addition to the US-results.signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Focus FM (Ghana)Edit

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Note This was the outcome of an AFD just last month. The station's operations are on the university campus and the university is a partial stakeholder. Raymie (tc) 23:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: It could've been relisted in the first place instead of concluding to delete it since the first nominator and I were the only ones who voted. I voted for a redirect in the AfD. Anyway, my search indicates that Focus FM is a campus radio station of KNUST. Hence, the redirect. ASTIG😎 (ICE TICE CUBE) 08:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
My concern is that if it isn't mentioned at the target, someone searching for this term is not going to find anything useful. It's not clear to me whether mentioning Focus FM is due for the target article. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can create a segment about the station in the target article. A segment in a magazine talks about the station. Kojo Akoto Boateng, NY DJ and Lexis Bill are among the personalities who had their stints at the station. This article even mentions some of the station's programs. Therefore, the redirect deserves to be kept, IMO. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply from hereon. ASTIG😎 (ICE TICE CUBE) 16:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target, therefore a reader will find no useful information there. No prejudice against keeping if someone actually gets round to adding a sourced mention to the target. Narky Blert (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this for a second time since a clear consensus has yet to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Similarly to , this is not a pictogram (see ) but a mathematical character whose use is not explained in the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep these characters are U+29D6 WHITE HOURGLASS and U+29D7 BLACK HOURGLASS. The nominator may be getting confused with similar looking symbols? If so then add a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: Um, no. These characters are in the block Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B and refer to mathematical relations. The white one also has the informal alias "vertical bowtie", which refers to the "bowtie" relation symbol ⋈. Redirecting this to "hourglass" would be like redirecting "∇" to Nabla (instrument). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
      • The names I quote are what the unicode symbols are defined as and so where they should redirect. What unicode block they are in isn't really relevant, hatnotes are a thing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Thryduulf: Maybe also check out other Unicode properties? They have the general category "Symbol, Math", which is quite a good tip that this is not used as a picture of a hourglass in the intended context. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Thryduulf: Any comments concerning my argument? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B, which offers the reader more information than the current target: it tells them the name of the character (if they mouse-over it in the table), and it also tells them that it's a mathematical symbol. As far as I know, mobile phone keyboards don't produce these symbol as an "emoji" if you type in "hourglass", so the most likely use-case is someone copy-pasting it from a source. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Captain Galaxy: That does not make sense. This is a mathematical symbol with no emoji properties defined in the Unicode Standard (for that, there specifically is ⌛), and there is no way somebody would search this up not looking for the mathematical meaning (especially as an actual emoji for the object does exist). Also see my argument above, which nobody has disputed yet. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Similarly to , this is not a pictogram but a mathematical character whose use is not explained in the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep this is U+29D3 BLACK BOWTIE ( is U+22C8 BOWTIE). If there is a similar looking mathematical symbol a hatnote can be added to the target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The mathematical symbol is not "similar looking"; this is a mathematical symbol and is therefore part of the Unicode block Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B. There is no reason to have this as a redirect to the object this is named after: the ring operator "∘" has nothing, except the visual similarity, to do with a ring. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B, which offers the reader more information than the current target: it tells them the name of the character (if they mouse-over it in the table), and it also tells them that it's a mathematical symbol. As far as I know, mobile phone keyboards don't produce this symbol as an "emoji" if you type in "bowtie", so the most likely use-case is someone copy-pasting it from a source. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Captain Galaxy: The symbol has no emoji properties in the Unicode Standard and is of the "Symbol, Math" general category. Someone searching for this is ways more likely to look for the mathematical meaning, and using this as a pictograph is even incorrect in the way that it is absolutely not the usage intended by Unicode. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UNSOURCEDEdit

Misleading redirect. It gives the impression that 'unsourced' equals 'no inline citations', and disregards general references and external links (which, according to WP:BLPPROD, do count as sources assuming they actually support content in the article). I think this is a big part of the reason so many editors get confused between 'unsourced' and 'no inline citations'. It's extremely common to see an article tagged with {{unreferenced}}/{{BLP unsourced}} where a tag such as {{no footnotes}}/{{BLP no footnotes}} would be more appropriate. The other sections of Wikipedia:Citing sources describe the types of citation, so I suggest that this is retargeted to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dealing with unsourced material. Adam9007 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. The section in question (which of course was worded different back when the redirect was first created in 2008) says All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] (emphasis mine). The original wording should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation was clearer in that regard but still, the equation "no inline citations" = "unsourced" is not supported by the policy. The current wording is a result of this RFC from 2012 but as far as I understand it, the RFC did not intend to change the meaning. In fact, multiple editors explicitly commented that the wording does not mean that inline citations are required, just that they can be used to satisfy the requirement to provide a source. This shortcut is mostly used by users reverting unsourced additions, so it makes sense to point users to the section of WP:V that explains why unsourced additions can be removed. Regards SoWhy 18:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @SoWhy: Then the voice needs changing, because with the way it's worded right now, I'm not surprised that some don't see the difference between 'source/reference' and 'inline citation' (it sounds as though an inline citation is the only way to satisfy the requirement). But that's a subject for another discussion. My point here is that I'm fed up to the back teeth of people getting it wrong (only the other day, an editor who clearly hadn't read the policies got a bit narky with me and insisted that 'source' means 'citation', and wouldn't listen when I corrected them), and I'm jiggered if this redirect isn't part of the reason why this happens. Adam9007 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per SoWhy - the current target is clearly what the great majority of currently existing links intend to reference. Whether the target should be reworded is out of scope for this page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per SoWhy and Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dealing with unsourced material per nom. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Not broken imo. Actually it will break a lot of links if we don't keep the redirect as it is. Let's just keep it simple please. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 01:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A list of local Ugandan television stations.Edit

Delete both the definite article and the ending stop make this an extremely unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. While I can see the nonexistent A list of local Ugandan television stations (without the period) as a plausible search term (like with all these other "A list of" redirects on Wikipedia), this...not so much, because of the period at the end, since it's a general topic without need for such stylization. Regards, SONIC678. 18:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • A delete. Per nom, the indefinite article and full stop make it a quite unlikely search term; the correctly stylized title is (slightly) simpler anyway. ComplexRational (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This redirect was created from a page move. However, the move was done shortly after the article was created, so it is unlikely that anyone would be using this redirect. So delete per above. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cape Verdean SpanishEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 8#Cape Verdean Spanish

TCL CommunicationEdit

An IP user removed this redirect with the rationale: "RE-USE TCL Communication is a different company than TCL Corporation or TCL Technology, TCL Communication is its own company. It has to be used for TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED. http://tcl.com". Therefore, should this redirect be deleted or changed? It appears TCL Technology was originally called Telephone Communication Limited, but it does not appear that it was called TCL Communication. It does seem like there is a company called TCL Communication - probably a non-notable one, but this redirect does not really serve a purpose if it is more likely to create confusion than anything. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment - the quoted text above (ie the claim that they were different companies) was the 'article' that was created, and which is obviously not sufficient for an article. I just wanted to do my due diligence and provide a platform for the IP's claims - if you are correct (and I assume you are!) the redirect should remain. Thanks! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as is for now, as the revision written by the IP does not clearly meet notability guidelines. I would suggest that the IP try submitting a prospective article through WP:AfC. signed, Rosguill talk 22:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer – I've applied page protection to the redirect because editors kept removing the RfD tag. You should remove the protection as part of your close if it hasn't expired before then. signed, Rosguill talk 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Mount Washington (Massachusetts)Edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 8#Mount Washington (Massachusetts)

Edit

Not mentioned at target, but could be retargeted to multiset if corresponding information is added (per Unicode name "Z NOTATION BAG MEMBERSHIP"). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep or delete. "Z notation" is a specific formal specification language that is known only by specialists of specification language. I am not even convinced that it is commonly used in this area of computer science. So, retargeting to an article of mathematics would be confusing for almost all readers, an would give WP:UNDUE weight to this specific specification language. D.Lazard (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Not mentioned at target. Should probably point to Composition of relations. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep or retarget This is U+2A3E Z NOTATION RELATIONAL COMPOSITION, so either target seems relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep or delete. "Z notation" is a specific formal specification language that is known only by specialists of specification language. I am not even convinced that it is commonly used in this area of computer science. So, retargeting to an article that is not about formal specifications would be confusing for almost all readers, an would give WP:UNDUE weight to this specific specification language. Composition of relations is an article of mathematics, and this symbol is not used in mathematics: Z notation belongs to applied computer science and there is no mathematics there (except, maybe, some mathematical logic for proving that the language is consistent, but I am not sure that this has ever been done). D.Lazard (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Poverty draftEdit

Delete This phrase does not appear in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems to be an unofficial and infrequently used term which refers to recruiting poor people for the military - it is not mentioned in target (and shouldn't be) and applies to a specific theoretical phenomenon and is not synonymous with the target. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

ChinAEdit

Recently-created CamelCase redirects are not allowed on Wikipedia. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete This is not even CamelCase, just unnecessary capitalization of the A, which is still not very helpful for a redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • FairlY weaK deletE thiS thinG, which while it got decenT pageviewS both lasT yeaR and thiS yeaR, it kinda looks like searcH baR clutteR, since the correctlY capitalizeD counterparT will appear in the searcH baR in mosT caseS, and I doubT many people would intentionallY capitalizE the A in this contexT. AlsO, maybe there's somethinG elsE they're looking for that might use this particulaR capitalizatioN? RegardS, SONIC678 16:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reason to create this after the UseModWiki era ended, or to retain it. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as helpful and harmless per RHARMFUL. @Soumya-8974: there is no rule that post-UseModWiki CamelCase redirects are not allowed. This redirect has decent pageviews and isn't search bar clutter – if I search up Chin, then ChinA does not appear in the drop-down options. J947messageedits 21:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless clutter. Thoroughly implausible typing error. This looks like a trademark or the name of a rapper, not a country. Narky Blert (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Narky Blert. As alluded to by Nyttend, this is not a historical CamelCase link like nost:FrancE; Wikipedia's article on China wasn't created until October 2001 (see nost:China), after the February 2001 decision to transition away from CamelCase links). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per J947. The redirect indeed doesn't appear in the first 500 results of a Wikipedia search of "Chin", and the redirect has some decent pageviews. It does appear like WP:PANDORA (meaning the reader could expect redirects like PhilippineS or CanadA because of this redirect), but it's not as bad as Who is the Philippine president with the longest tenure redirecting to Ferdinand Marcos. I believe keeping this redirect will not set a precedent for PhilippineS, CanadA, and other similar future redirects, as we deal with redirects listed in RfD case-by-case. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incorrect camel case not even from the time that was used in page titles. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • dElete incorrect camel case. {{3125A|talk}} 18:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

China (People's Rep.)Edit

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

June 30Edit

Loop 404Edit

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

Collapse forcingEdit

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

The village with the long nameEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

EspérantoEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Bank station (Ottawa)Edit

The first redirect was first an article about a bus stop, then blanked and redirected to Transitway (Ottawa), then retargeted to Parliament station. Neither of the latter 2 targets mention "Bank station" and the current target is not known as "Bank station". The other 3 redirects are similar. I suggest delete all. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Bank station was a stop on Ottawa's rapid bus system, known as the Transitway. It no longer exists, because it was replaced by light rail. Parliament Station is the closest station to Bank, but it's not the same thing. I suggest reverting the redirects so that the Bank station article discusses the historicity of the now defunct station.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Bank "station" was no more than an on-street bus stop – I don't think it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for having its own article. I'd be fine with deleting the redirects. BLAIXX 21:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per my rationale above. BLAIXX 03:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If not a separate article, then at least the Transitway (Ottawa)#History section should be expanded to refer to these stops by name. Set theorist (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added the names of these former stops to the description at Transitway (Ottawa)#Central Transitway (which is the redirect target of Central Transitway), so these titles can redirect there. Set theorist (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist so that editors can assess Set theorist's arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • That looks like a good compromise to me. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm ok with this as well. BLAIXX 21:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we ideally want a bit more work at Transitway (Ottawa). The only mention of the Bank station is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it reference to a Bank Street stop (I assume that's the same thing?). I haven't looked into the other stations cited by Set theorist. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Electronic Transactions on Artificial IntelligenceEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Hindi Literature InfoEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Finnic paganismEdit

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

Сitadel of Baturyn FortressEdit

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

Liam DuttonEdit

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

Orthodox ChurchEdit

Oriental Orthodox is also known as Orthodox Church and is not the same as Eastern Orthodox and has a separate article 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Orthodox#Religion (a dab page section) where all the various Orthodox churches are (or should be) listed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep – the hatnote disambiguation already at Eastern Orthodox Church is sufficient to direct people where they need to go. Anecdotally, the Eastern Orthodox church is the primary topic here, and Google Scholar would appear to confirm that, both when you survey search results for "Orthodox Church" (many search results about the Eastern Orthodox use "Orthodox Church" in titles without further clarification, whereas articles of Oriental Orthodox denominations appear to always immediately contextualize with the specific location or denomination, and it takes a page or two before OOC results show up for the first time) as well as when you compare raw counts of search results for each denomination (10,600 results for EOC, 239 for OOC). signed, Rosguill talk 03:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf as ambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - already has disambiguation with further information declared. By this action, shouldn't the Catholic Church article be solely retargeted itself? Oh, might I also add it is the most common simple name for Eastern Orthodoxy. Oriental Orthodoxy is not classified solely as the Oriental Orthodox Church, but as Oriental Orthodox Churches. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Orthodox#Religion per Thryduulf. This action will destroy any room for debate. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term is ambiguous but rather than target a disambiguation page (a sensible option) it may be better to accept there is a primary topic and target that, where there are 2 useful hatnotes to both the nominator's alternative and to the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    We usually prefer WP:1HAT over two on Wikipedia articles. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, but exceptions may be warranted. I think one is here. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Shhhnotsoloud: I disagree that there is a clear primary topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget, but to Orthodoxy#Christianity. Keeping with general English usage, it's fair to assume "church" means Christianity. While it can be difficult to disentangle the separate expressions of Orthodox Christianity, this is going to remain a very common search term. I strongly favor keeping this pointing to article content by default. Thus, my second choice would be keep, since Eastern Orthodox Church covers the great majority of Orthodox Christianity, and has comprehensive hatnotes. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The question is, what are you looking for, when clicking on the link 'Orthodox Church'. I do not have the data, but I believe that a large part of wiki articles with this link refers to Eastern Orthodox Church. I myself got here from a page about a certain Swiss town. The demographics said that 10 people belonged to Orthodox Church. I do not have the official data, because it refers to 2009 survey, which I cannot check. Nevertheless, in general, it is more likely to belong to an Eastern Orthodox Church in Switzerland than to Oriental Orthodox. Thus I presume the page should have redirected me to the Eastern orthodox. Furthermore, the page for Eastern Orthodox Church has many sufficient hatnotes. If we chose to retarget though, I agree with the above comment of BDD, who suggested retargeting to Orthodoxy#Christianity, rather than Orthodox#Religion, which would be even more confusing. Cunikm (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, there obviously is a confusion in what an eastern and what an oriental orthodox church is. The proof are the maps on the respective pages. Both maps show, that above 50% of Ethiopian population belong to either Eastern or Oriental church. However, only about half of the entire Ethiopian population is Christian. The similar thoughts can be made about Egypt, for example. Cunikm (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • One more note here: There are a lot of incoming links (500+ in mainspace alone). These would need to be updated if this is retargeted to a disambiguation page. No such action would be needed if we retarget to Orthodox#Christianity. Any non-Christian uses probably shouldn't be linking via "Orthodox Church" anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Episode 420Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Comparative morphologyEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Comparative morphology

ArchewayEdit

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

June 29Edit

Great Collapse (2020-present)Edit

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

Window Seat (film)Edit

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

Sioux City, South DakotaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Template:R from subspecies to speciesEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

F. WalkerEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Fuck off piss offEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

PFTAWBLQPZVEMU-DZGCQCFKSA-NEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#PFTAWBLQPZVEMU-DZGCQCFKSA-N

C. vitisEdit

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

English royal familyEdit

This should be retargeted to a page that relates to the monarchs before England and Scotland merged. Probably Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#English_monarchy, but want to seek community input first. Interstellarity (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I have re-enabled the redirect to point to House of Windsor for now as this is a high-traffic redirect and the current target is helpful – though perhaps not as helpful as it would if it pointed to another target. We don't want readers confronted with a maintenance template. J947 [cont] 21:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I am very concerned about that decision and have reverted. We want users of this redirect to weigh in on it. By "reenabling" the redirect, those users are unaware that the redirect target will probably change. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      • It doesn't seem like readers do weigh in often at all from my experience. Perhaps there needs to be more discussion about this; either way, I will refrain from cheating around the RfD template in future. J947messageedits 06:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
        • If someone is uninterested in participating, it's trivial to just click on through. It's not trivial if someone does want to participate, and not being notified of the discussion costs that reader a chance to do so. People don't often say how they found the discussion, so it probably happens more often then we take credit for, but when someone comes to a discussion from following the redirect and then explaining their experience with it is oftentimes my favorite perspective to hear from. -- Tavix (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#English_monarchy makes sense to me. --Micky (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above, but add a hatnote to the current target as the incorrect meaning is at least as common as the correct one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambig. The point of a redirect is to help the reader get to the article they are looking for, not to be pedantically correct. I can't imagine any substantial number of people searching for "English royal family" want the Plantagenets or the Tudors, as opposed to the Windsors. The few incoming links tend to be historical, but I suspect we are looking at the ones that couldn't be easily disambiguated to a specific house. A disambig page along the lines of Queen of England would be appropriate, pointing to both the correct historical meaning, and the current royal house of the United Kingdom.--Trystan (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's pedantic to say that the "English royal family" is not the same as the "House of Windsor". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I think we would be being pedantic if we implemented a solution that didn't take into account the possibility that British royal family is what the searcher is looking for. I'd support a link to Monarchy of the United Kingdom with no section link, as you suggest below.--Trystan (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Micericky and hatnote target section per Thryduulf. England hasn't had a royal family since 1707. Narky Blert (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per suggestion above, but as the term may be misunderstood, I would target the article without a section link, rather than using a section link and a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm OK with this suggestion, about equally with my own. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget (to section) with hatnote - Just to clarify our position here, quite a few USA-ians incorrectly believe that "England" consists of London, Scotland, and "Ireland" (although they may be vaguely aware that the latter is or was subject to some sort of disagreement). They've never heard of Wales or the rest of England proper, and may misinterpret "Northern Ireland" as merely a geographic term (i.e. the northern part of "Ireland"). If you ask them about "the UK," they may believe "Oh, that's the correct name for England now," because last time they tried to refer to the sovereign state as "England," they were corrected by someone more knowledgeable. So yes, this is definitely a point of confusion for my countrymen, and a hatnote would be very much in order. But we shouldn't DABify or target the whole article, because this is already a good WP:NATURALDIS title. --NYKevin 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to British royal family, more or less per NYKevin's argument even though he had selected a different target. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Since this redirect technically wasn't tagged for almost the entire discussion, I recommend relisting to give users of the redirect an opportunity to weigh in on its future. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per User:Tavix's comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to British royal family per Tavix, with apologies for making a close more difficult. We must accept that the great majority of readers, especially those outside of or unfamiliar with Commonwealth conventions, will be looking for the British royal family. And while "English royal family" is not the proper name for the family, I would argue it is not wrong as a purely descriptive title, inasmuch as it is the only current royal family which is in any way English. A hatnote going the other way might be workable, but part of what pushed me away from Monarchy of the United Kingdom#English monarchy is the paucity of information there about any royal family as such (outside of sporadic mentions of family members and houses). --BDD (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to British royal family and add a hatnote pointing to the more accurate target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Auxiliary aidEdit

Ambiguous phrase, not mentioned at the target. While there is a legal term by this name associated with the ADA, this phrase is also used in myriad other contexts. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 01:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So, an article about it can be useful for an American, a British or an Indian. BoldLuis (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
No. Legal terms have different meanings in different jurisdictions. Narky Blert (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Narky Blert has written no single line here ;-). On the other hand, not applied here the surprise where you directed : "When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, information is understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently." ;-?BoldLuis (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The people with disabilities as me are very interested in know the legal definition of the term in the legal text, that can be included in the targeted article or in a new one. Very worried about equality in America. https://www.ada.gov/reachingout/t3regl2.html https://www.adalive.org/faq_episode4_q4 BoldLuis (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    This argument would be a lot stronger if you added a duly-sourced mention to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 04:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    Why cannot could be written now?. The article is defective and can be improved, by you, me and anyother. And it must include definitions, specilly if they are as clear as this for disabilities. 10:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    The burden of proof is on you to make sure that contributions you make are actually useful as of when you make them. While Wikipedia is collaborative, you can't make a literal bridge to nowhere and demand someone else to fill it in. Take some responsibility for your contributions and clean up after yourself. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    [15]. By you, by me and any other one. You know I helped to improve a lot of articles, as I see it the most useful paper here in Wikipedia.BoldLuis (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or provide a hatnote at the current target Deleting this redirect will not benefit Wikipedia and will only frustrate people with disabilities. Keeping it as it is will not help non-American readers either. Either create a dab page consisting of the current target and Equality Act 2010, or create a hatnote at Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 linking to Equality Act 2010. Or both, if we could find more instances of "auxiliary aid" in a non-American context. --im temtemhOI!!fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 04:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    Auxiliary aid is a common phrase used across tons of contexts, from psychoanalysis to shipping. signed, Rosguill talk 04:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    As I provided, it is clear in the sphere of us, the handicaped. So a definition for disability it is clear, as said by the user and me. BoldLuis (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I tried drafting a disambiguation page, but the two WP:DABMENTIONs I can find are pretty terrible. (I'm neutral, feel free to delete my dab page.) OTOH, it is worth noting that since we're not trying to create an article about auxiliary aid, just a disambiguation, the fact that the phrase "auxiliary aid" is common doesn't particularly matter - we only need to guide readers to uses of "auxiliary aid" which are actual topics. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • DAB is OK. @59.149.124.29:: thank you a lot. I added more information in the ADA article. Wikipedia:Collaborations BoldLuis (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or dab The current redirect is promoting the American use of the term, which is not what all the world will be expecting to see. Either redirect as misleading, or create a dab for all the relevant terms. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I appreciate the IP's drafting of a disambiguation page, and the admission that it's still shaky. The nominator has successfully demonstrated that the term is used in many contexts, and to borrow a Wiktionary criterion, it seems like a non-idiomatic phrase, possibly referring to any aid which is auxiliary. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't delete, but I'm not sure what to do after that. So long as we have significant content on "auxiliary aid", like we do at Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990#Auxiliary aids, a redlink would be doing a disservice to those trying to find content on the subject. I appreciate the sentiment that the term isn't exclusive to this context. However, the disambiguation is shaky because there really isn't much content on other types of auxiliary aids in other jurisdictions. Probably the best solution would be to turn this into an article with a section for auxiliary aids in each jurisdiction, with a see also hatnote on top of the American section to Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990#Auxiliary aids. For now though, maybe the best actionable solution would be to retarget to that ADA section, with a hatnote to the UK article, which reflects the status quo of which articles have the most relevant content. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Refine (to "auxiliary aids" section) or DAB - There is significant relevant content at the current target. We don't delete redirects for ambiguity, so something ought to exist at this title. If there's no content on non-American usages, then tag {{R with possibilities}} and/or {{R to subtopic}}. --NYKevin 04:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:International Space StationEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 8#Template:International Space Station

NarasimharajaEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Narasimharaja

Infobox bookEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

African language (stereotype)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Bugel'Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I-OSEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

FucqEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)