Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Information

From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.)

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?


The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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 criteria G10 and G3 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 unless if the redirect from the main article namespace points to the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, and Portal: namespaces.)
  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 in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

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 redirects

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 notes

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • 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]]

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

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

Current list

April 17

Brilliant brown

I cannot find any connection between "Brilliant brown" and orange, all the search results I get are related to the colour brown, unsurprisingly. Is this some kind of colour nomenclature that I'm just not familiar with? 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • That article says that brilliant isn't a valid modifier for brown in the ISCC–NBS_system and that brilliant brown doesn't exist as a colour? I'm still not seeing how you get from there to orange, but that may just be my attempts at searching, everything is drowned out by make-up results. Even if it is correct I'm not seeing that searching for a non-existent classification is a plausible way of looking for for orange, I think most readers would expect to end up at brown. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Improbable redirect. I get the idea (brown objects reflect orange light dimly and this is understood by our eyes to be brown), but it's not something that is needed as a redirect. User:GKFX talk 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to ISCC–NBS system#Color categories, where this specific color (i.e. the lack of its existence) is actually mentioned. CycloneYoris talk! 06:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not actually a color, so I think it more likely someone would be searching for a type of make-up, which dominates my search. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Halo game

These are ambiguous in my opinion, and do not exclusively refer to Halo: Combat Evolved. Back in 2005/2006 when these redirects were made there were only 2 games in the series, but I think there are now 16 video games in the halo franchise, plus some spin off board games and the like. A google search for these terms turns up a complete mix of results covering every game in the series, so I'm not convinced by the argument in the previous RfD that combat evolved is the primary topic of these phrases. I propose retargeting all of these to the article on the franchise ( Halo (franchise)). 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Halo (franchise)#Game series. Probably didn't need to be discussed here unless there was pushback on the retargetting. Also take a look at the hatnote on that page following any new redirects to it. Lithopsian ( talk) 13:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I listed them here because these redirects are ancient and some have been at their current target for over a decade, two of these have already been discussed at RFD and I shouldn't be unilaterally overriding the previous consensus and there have been numerous attempts to retarget them in the page history, so clearly there's been some disagreement over where they should target. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 14:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Halo (video game) Delete the rest The last one is pointing to the right place IMO. The others are unnecessary permutations of the disambiguation, and the search function can handle it fine. (Typing "Halo video game" into search immediately brings up the franchise). ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the last month these got 57, 12, 11 and 85 page views, so these are plausible search terms and shouldn't be deleted in my opinion. I'm not seeing any evidence that the last one is pointing to the right place, anywhere I search (e.g google) turns up a complete mix of results covering all kinds of games from the franchise. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 10:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep those with parenthetical disambiguation that indicates they're looking for the first game and retarget the others to the franchise page. They get a decent amount of views and aren't unreasonable search terms.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Halo (franchise). I think this refers to whichever entry in the franchise someone happens to be talking about, with the primary probably being either the most newly released, or a soon-to-be released game if applicable. Either way, the franchise article has all games listed. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Parity Amendment

Both an internal search and a Scholar search suggest that this term has been used to describe various pieces of legislation; I would suggest deletion to allow for uninhibited search results, as most of Wikipedia's coverage of such concepts is spread across various biographical and historical articles, rather than at the pages for laws that could be easily disambiguated. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Party rights (Philippines)

Not mention of "party rights" at the target, not clearly associated with the target based on a Scholar and internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who participate in the WikiProject Old Norse

No such grouping of Wikipedians exists at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The Sea Capital

Varna is indeed seen as a "maritime capital" of Bulgaria, but – even allowing for the fact that such descriptions may not be as common elsewhere – it's still odd to have such a general term redirect to one specific place. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:A

Extremeley confusing shortcut redirect, there is no connection between the letter "A" and the word "Pagetype". The pagetype template is basically never used in a page directly, it's always part of another template, so I don't see the need for a single letter shortcut redirect which are in extremeley short supply as there are only 26. Newly created, so no backlinks at the moment. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@ JsfasdF252: You do not need to try to reduce the number of characters of text in pages by creating weird redirects or any other method. It is not helpful and just makes them harder to read. See also TfD of Template:IN. The edit summary for this page's creation is "Save 7 characters". User:GKFX talk 12:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
And by "any other method", do you mean creating "hybrid" template "shortcuts", splitting articles into "subpages", etc? JsfasdF252 ( talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@ JsfasdF252: I'd assume so - you definitely should not do that. Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete bad template shortcut. Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject spaceflight

Inappropriate cross namespace redirect. It it extremely unlikely that readers are going to be searching for wikiprojects, and if they are looking for them I think it is inappropriate to send them to an informal forum for discussing improving the encyclopaedia, as opposed to an encyclopaedia topic on the subject (like the Wikiproject article). 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See also the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Stalingrad, Bulgaria

Misleading redirect, the city of Varna, Bulgaria was formerly called Stalin, not Stalingrad. ( t · c) buidhe 06:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

2028 United States presidential election

This is premature, and not a useful search term if it's just going to point to the generic presidential election article. ―  Tartan357  Talk 04:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There is absolutely nothing that can be said about this specific election at the moment, and we still have the 2024 election to go before this one. There was an article in the page history, but it consisted entirely of unsourced crystal balling about Joe Biden's eligibility to run assuming he won the 2024 election, and some WP:A10 able material that just described the generic process for a US election. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too soon to have this redirect. If it gets repeatedly recreated we might use some WP:SALT until 2024. Dominicmgm ( talk) 12:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Salt Doesn't really matter if there's a redirect or not but since this was already created WAY too early and likely will be again, it should be protected until 2024, just as the 2024 page was protected until after the 2020 election. Reywas92 Talk 18:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Salt until January 2024, when it would be reasonable to have the beginnings of an article. Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Summary of indira gandhi as prime minister

Badly capitalized, grammatically dubious and extremely unlikely to be used as a search term. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Surprisingly this does seem to have been getting a fairly consistent 10 or so page views a month for the last 5 years. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Vladislaus IV of Poland, Sweden, Gothenland and Vandalia, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia and Moscow

Delete this redirect that is created just to prove a point. Editing just to prove a point per se isn't bad but I believe that this page is too long for any actual use besides. NotReallySoroka ( talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Israel/Books

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type * Pppery * it has begun... 02:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom and the previous discussion - Inappropriate cross namespace redirect, we should not be sending readers in article space to informal discussion forums for talking about improvements to the encyclopaedia. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Change to Shortcut. All the WikiProjects, without exception, have a shortened form for accessing the page. That form is, in fact, a Shortcut (see shortcut), which I had mistaken for being a Redirect. My mistake. Davidbena ( talk) 17:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

ヒノマルクラゲ

To be deleted. Seems to be obvious foreign language clutter in enwiki: Estopedist1 ( talk) 12:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Estopedist1: I've fixed this malformed nomination and tagged the redirects for you. Could you please read the instructions on how to do bundled nominations properly at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#How to list a redirect or discussion? When you nominate more than one redirect in a discussion they all need to be tagged and put in an RfD2 template, you can't just stick them in a bullet point list at the end of the nomination. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 13:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Estopedist1: how do these differ from any of the other redirects in Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms ( 943 )? Why are these particular ones singled out? -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 02:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Awkwafaba: these are categorized into content categories, in this case into: Category:Siphonophorae; hence - obvious clutter. In addition, probably most of these foreign language redirects (ie Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms) should be deleted in future to keep enwiki database clean-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 05:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Estopedist1: sounds like you really want to take the above pages out of Category:Siphonophorae and a CfD on Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 03:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Julian of Rome

None of these epithets sound legit. A search for "Julian the Philosopher" on Gscholar returns a few results, but (as someone pointed out in the talk page awhile ago) in some of these the phrase seems to simply denote his philosophical activity – thus, a regular qualifier like any other, rather than a proper epithet. "Julian of Rome" sounds like the name of a priest or monk. A search for the more famous "Julian the Apostate" returns infinitely more results than any of these. Avilich ( talk) 02:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Julian of Rome, Julian the Blessed, Julian the Great and Julianus Imperator; Keep Julian the Hellene (maybe) and Julian the Philosopher (certainly). I was perplexed by several references I found to a "Julian of Rome", but it appears to be an error for Pope Julius I. Srnec ( talk) 03:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep "Julian the Hellene", no opinion on the others. ★Trekker ( talk) 13:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: to the extent that any of these are likely search terms, they should be kept, even if other phrases are much more common. They should only be deleted if it is highly improbable that anyone would search under them—e.g. if they were the invention of a single person with an agenda to puff up Julian's reputation, and not adopted by any serious academics. "Julian the Blessed" strikes me as that sort of attempt to "counteract" the common title of "Julian the Apostate", which, while admittedly negative, is among the most common names for the subject, past and present, scholarly and otherwise, and, IMO, has lost most of its pejorative force (apart from the most fanatical of religious figures, who rails against apostasy these days?). So really Julian doesn't need a fan club to escape his "bad reputation amongst Christians"—most Christians don't really care that Julian, like all of the emperors before AD 337, was a pagan. Of course, if it's actually used in scholarly literature to refer to Julian, and not merely mentioned in passing, then even "Julian the Blessed" would be an appropriate redirect, but only if it's actually in general (not necessarily common, but not limited to a single source of dubious authority, and a handful of citations to it) use. I doubt that "Julianus Imperator" is a useful redirect, since it's just "Julian Emperor" translated into Latin, and this is English Wikipedia. It would be a reasonable redirect for Vicipaedia, or other Wikis that use Latin orthography for Romans, but we never use forms like this to refer to Julian in English—apart from, perhaps, the title of some chapter in a biography, or the caption of an illustration—but in those cases I still don't think anyone would search under the term. As Srnec suggests, "Julian of Rome" seems fatally vague, and might be better as a redirect for the pope. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As the nom I still believe "Julian the Philosopher" is very flimsy and questionable. As is already clarified in Julian's talk page (December 2012), the epithet is quite rare and, when it does appear, it likely denotes Julian as a philosopher (a mundane reference to this occupation) rather than a something he was actually known as. If it ever becomes a common term it could be recreated, but currently it does not seem to be so, either in reliable sources or common usage. Avilich ( talk) 20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Android S

Not mentioned at the target or Android version history, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Please read a message I wrote at the bottom of Talk:Android 10. Georgia guy ( talk) 16:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure what you're asking for there, you want those pages creation protected so that the operating system articles can be moves there? If there's a redirect in the way of a page move list it at WP:RM and the redirect will just be WP:G6 speedy deleted to make room for the page move, or if it has significant history a page mover can do a WP:Round robin page swap. There's no need to block protection of those articles. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 19:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This seems to be related to Google's developer previews for the operating system. If you look at the android developer blog here you can see that to get code to compile for android 12 you have to tell the compiler to compile for operating system version "Android-S" 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 19:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Android version history makes it clear that most versions were codenamed alphabetically with a dessert (eg: Nougat is 7, Oreo is 8, Pie is 9). By the time they got to the letter Q for Android 10, they dropped the dessert name and codenamed it with just the letter. Following that forward, Android 11 is Android R and then 12 is S. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

London Buses route 614

Implausible redirect because the 614 bus isn't a London Bus route, it's a Hertfordshire bus route. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 10:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to List of bus routes in London#Non-TfL bus routes in Greater London. Much of this route is in London so this is (as explained in the nominations above) a very plausible search term, we don't require readers to know everything about what they are looking up in an encyclopaedia before they have looked it up. The list article is more helpful as a target though as it details the specific route with a link to the operator (the current target) for those that are looking for that. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Does the Flower Bloom?

This is my first time nominating a redirect for discussion, so I apologize in advance if I'm doing something wrong. I was wondering if this redirect is valid? "Does the Flower Bloom?" is a fan-translated title for the series that seemed to have appeared when the live-action film was released despite "Does the Flower Blossom?" being used as a title since 2015. lullabying ( talk) 06:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: If it's a translation in use amongst fans, it's reasonable to expect people will look for or recognize the title. Vaticidal prophet 11:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Lexi Rabe

The target article has little to do with the subject of 'Lexi Rabe', other than her being a cast member. It does not contain any info about her, and is confusing for someone who searches for the subject. The redirect should therefore be deleted. IronManCap ( talk) 00:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Rosen Trap

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 19:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Changed redirect to List of chess traps. to disambiguation page Sun Creator( talk) 09:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Incorrect redirect, as the Rosen Trap is a swindle, not a trap. I'll revert to the original redirect. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich ( talk) 21:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Well it is an opening trap. If it's a swindle as well, then maybe it's a disambig? Sun Creator( talk) 08:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Just noting that changing a redirect's target while a discussion is ongoing is considered bad practice due to the confusion it can cause. As such, I've reverted the redirect back to its target at the start of the discussion. J947 messageedits 09:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Was already in progress of converting to a disambig page, per talk page edit.. Sun Creator( talk) 09:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

April 16

Template:Str index any

Obsolete template redirect, only one use. Can also get rid of its subpages. User:GKFX talk 22:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Lastbut0

Template redirect which is not transcluded. One incoming link refers to the old version of the page not the current target. User:GKFX talk 21:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I honestly cannot remember why I brought the pre-redirect version over from Meta Wiki. If it’s not used, then its deletion cannot have too many consequences. — Spike Toronto 07:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Aa

Now that {{ zz}} has been deleted on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Template:Zz, there is no reason to keep this here. Same delete reason as in the linked RfD. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 20:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per deletion of {{ zz}}, doesn't make sense by itself, unexpected redirect -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unused, doesn't make sense without the matching redirect (not that it was particularly intuitive to start with), shorthand template shortcuts are limited and I'm sure that someone will come up with a better target for this. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The former guy

I get where it's coming from, but this is not a helpful redirect. There are a multitude of things people could be looking for with this search term. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 19:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete This phrase is unusual and, by itself, meaningless. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 05:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

LeBron Witness Shirt

Delete – unlikely search term and is not currently discussed in the article. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Big 11

This redirect was created when the Big Ten Conference had eleven (11) member institutions. It now has fourteen (14) members, so having "Big 11" redirect to Big Ten Conference would just result in unwarranted confusion. The owner of all ( talk) 18:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Redirects are cheap and there is nothing else more relevant that "Big 11" could redirect towards. I have not seen any confusion over the redirect, especially considering the conference had 11 members a little over a decade ago or so. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mid-range shawty

A fairly obscure nickname for Smith that isn't mentioned in the target or any other article. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 15:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ion Bălan

Delete: Ian Balan (the target) is a Moldovan politician whereas Ion Bălan (the redirect) is a Romanian politician ( ro:Ion Bălan). Having one redirect to the other is confusing. Gorobay ( talk) 15:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Fukuoka Asian Film Festival

Not mentioned in the target. Nardog ( talk) 13:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Fukuoka#Festivals after adding a sentence or paragraph about the film festival there, then also add the (redirect) link to the list article. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 14:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, the thing just ended for good, and it's a very different kind of festival than those already mentioned in that section, so there's a good chance it'd be removed again even if we added it there. Nardog ( talk) 18:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep If the current redirect target doesn't mention it, that's the current redirect target's fault. The festival is almost certainly notable enough for a standalone article, let alone an entry in a list, Hijiri 88 ( やや) 07:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NEW

Since at least some of these redirects are obviously intended to be left in messages to newcomers I think these should be synchronised to point at the same target (and Help:NEW created and pointed at the same place). It would not be a good experience for a newcomer if someone told them to read "WP:New", for help, they typed "WP:NEW" into the search bar and ended up in a completely different place. WP:NEW does have about 1000 back links, but they're pretty much all in ancient talk page messages and are actually supposed to be linking to the WP:New Users Log. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 13:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. WP:NEW originally linked to WP:New Users Log, AFAICS you're right and the vast majority are trying to link there, so by redirecting it again we wouldn't be losing much. ·· gracefool 💬 23:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind the Help:New going towards the Help:Your first article , and Wikipedia:New going towards Wikipedia:Article creation, but no preference either way. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 14:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

🙌

Raising hands seems like a better target, given that the symbol is called PERSON RAISING BOTH HANDS IN CELEBRATION. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Roman equivalent

I understand how the redirect text arises in this context, but "Roman equivalent" is far too generic a concept to redirect this way. A reader might want to find the "Roman equivalent" of ancient weights and measures, of later Italian or Byzantine institutions, or of any number of other things. The target article has several better redirects for those trying to find it without using the specific page title, and the redirect is too generic to point to any specific thing, so it should be deleted 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 14:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If it could be applied to several concepts—the titles of which may not be altogether intuitive—perhaps it would make sense to list them on a disambiguation page under this title. Otherwise, perhaps choose the most likely target (the mythological use seems slightly more probable than weights and measures, IMO), and place a hatnote there for other uses. P Aculeius ( talk) 15:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate There are many things which could be referred to as "Roman equivalent", such as Roman numeral equivalents of Arabic numbers. 053pvr ( talk) 05:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles  24/7  (C) 23:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate There are Roman equivalents of many, many modern things. 🐔  Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or just delete. The current targeting is clearly not optimal. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone has a concrete proposal of what should be disambiguated a this title. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. From my search, mythology is the primary usage of the term. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is definitely needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate , many equivalents exist, makes no sense for it to only link to one. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 14:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Caroline Henry

Delete as misleading. Unlikely that any English first speaker would confuse the two variants. Page stats show that the few views that have occurred are consistent with Caroline Henry (wife of Conservative MP Darren Henry) being announced as a candidate for Police and Crime Commissioner. I checked per BEFORE when updating the PCC article. For me, there's nothing more frustrating that arriving at an inappropriate link. Old RfD = delete on 11 August 2018 refers to a non-notable Caroline Henry [journalist), can't understand why this was created 16 February 2019?

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 00:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Name redirects are common — Jonathan may redirect to Jon, William may redirect to Will, Katherine may redirect to Kate, Charles may redirect to Charlie, Robert may redirect to Rob, etc. "Carol Henry" is contained entirely within "Caroline Henry", thus it may be of help to some users searching for similar names. On the other hand, no one would benefit if "Caroline Henry" were to become a redlink. — Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 02:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. No such person is listed on the disambiguation page, and we regularly delete "name variant + surname" redirects where there is no evidence that any person in Wikipedia actually uses the variant name: see e.g. RfDs for Samantha Leach, Billy Bentinck, or this whole bunch. Meanwhile, per WP:R#D10, a redlink is a valuable signal to readers & editors alike that we lack an article about the potentially-notable Police and Crime Commissioner Candidate. 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 05:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't think to check until reading the argument above, but Carolina Henry was likewise created 2 minutes afterwards. FYI only.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 12:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Russian Automobile Federation

Nominating for deletion. The target provides no information on the subject. Literally nothing apart from confirmation that this is the official name and that it exists. This redirect therefore serves no purpose other than to remove red links. Given there is a draft, WP:RfD#D10 also applies.
SSSB ( talk) 07:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No information whatsoever in the article about the Russian Automobile Federation other than perhaps what can be gleamed from the name anyway. Definitely better off as a redlink. A7V2 ( talk) 12:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep given the nomination premise is false. Redirecting to List of FIA member organisations doesn't give the reader a fount of knowledge, but it does show that the RAF is an FIA member responsible for sport and mobility. While that isn't a great deal, it certainly isn't Literally nothing apart from confirmation that this is the official name and that it exists and it is more informative than a red link. While WP:RfD#D10 could certainly apply here, the draft does not currently meet the WP:GNG threshold and isn't going to anytime soon. Simply that a draft exists is a pretty weak reason to delete a redirect if you ignore the quality of the draft.
    5225C ( talkcontributions) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete It just wasn't necessary to create a redirect to avoid a redlink. That could have been simply done by implementing a piped link to the section in the article that mentions this subject. However since the text is a really self-explanatory and the subject does not appear to have the notability to warrant a standalone article, a link was really necessary at all. T v x1 22:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. As Nikita Mazepin competes in Formula One under an "RAF" flag given the WADA ban on the Russian flag, readers would wonder what the Russian Automobile Federation is. Reminder of WP:OTHERSTUFF - just because many other automobile federations don't have redirects doesn't mean this one should go. The redirect is here out of a need to remove an outstanding red link that has 32 mainspace links to it. Spa-Franks ( talk) 12:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Spa-Franks: To remove red-links is not a valid reason to keep a redirect. Redlinks are desirable in cases where an article could plausibly be created as it makes it clear that no such article exists. Hence reason to delete a redirect number 10. A7V2 ( talk) 22:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
No, but RAF is a viable search term, and addressing potential search terms is one potential role of a redirect. As I noted above (and Joseph2302 has mentioned below), the RAF draft is not showing promising signs so while RfD#D10 is applicable to the letter, it isn't useful in practice ( WP:NOTBURO).
5225C ( talkcontributions) 07:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't responding to the claim it is or isn't a viable search term, Spa-Franks says "The redirect is here out of a need to remove an outstanding red link" which is a bad reason to keep or create a redirect. In any case, of course someone could search for "Russian Automobile Federation", but I do not feel they are well served by being taken to a list with no real details about the organisation (including a circular link, too). To me the quality of the draft is not relevant to the spirit of reason to delete number 10. There is "virtually no information" about the RAF in this article, so why should we redirect to it? Perhaps a better option if you feel that these organisations will never satisfy notability requirements would be to include short blurbs about the non-notable organisations on the list article? A7V2 ( talk) 00:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Nor am I saying "it should stay because there's 32 links to it", I'm just saying, as a statement of fact, why the redirect was created: I would humbly suggest removing all of the links if the redirect is deleted. Spa-Franks ( talk) 22:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: It serves purpose so people know what RAF means. Normally, I would suggest delete to encourage article creation, but there's no evidence the RAF passes WP:GNG- there's a draft article, but it's nowhere near showing non-inherited notability of this organisation. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment as people are bringing up that WP:RfD#D10 doesn't apply because it is a redirect, I wanted to clarify that I had not looked at the draft, or checked whether it would pass WP:GNG when I mentioned it in my rational.
    SSSB ( talk) 09:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wentworth (season 9)

Initially created redirect given news of a ninth season at the time; this news later changed and there will be no ninth season, meaning this redirect is unnecessary as it links a topic that will not exist. -- / Alex/ 21 07:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Bilgewater

Not mentioned in target article. Bilge (where Bilge water targets) is probably the better option. Hog Farm Talk 06:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Arkansas Bay

Not mentioned in target article, and a search of GNIS brings up no features in Louisiana named Arkansas Bay. I don't think this is really a logical redirect to point to Aransas Bay as a spelling error redirect, so this should probably be deleted. Hog Farm Talk 06:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Bay, Arkansas since I suppose someone may search for it this way. Otherwise just delete per nom as there doesn't appear to be any place called "Arkansas Bay". A7V2 ( talk) 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bay, Arkansas per A7V2. A possible way to put it. Less Unless ( talk) 14:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Alcare Hand Degermer

Specific brand of hand sanitizer that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on enwiki that the search function can find. This is useless pointing at the current target, as anyone looking for this brand is not going to find the content at ethanol useful. Hog Farm Talk 06:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Шығыс Қазақстан облысы,

WP:UNNATURAL. Note that Шығыс Қазақстан облысы exists. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. The comma makes this implausible. Dominicmgm ( talk) 06:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible search term. Less Unless ( talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Alex Oliveira

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

April 15

Claudia Pulchra (wife of Gracchus)

Complicated trove of misattributed/incorrect names which, since their original inception in 2015 (some were deleted and recreated several times after), have repeatedly misled readers and editors alike and led to several ill-conceived page moves and creations. There is only one person attested with the name 'Claudia Pulchra', but these entries and this highly irregular disambiguation page containing them have done a great deal to muddle this fact. Some of the people represented by the redirects are not even identical to whom the target articles represent, and so, even if any of the individual entries were correct, they'd be next to useless. It's highly unlikely anybody will ever type any of these terms without knowing them beforehand, and deleting all will spare both readers and editors of misdirection and confusion in the future. Avilich ( talk) 20:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment For two recent previous discussions, please see Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation). Certes ( talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all of these wives are so minor that they are unlikely to be a major source of confusion, there is only one Claudia Pulchra in the academic literature as far as I can tell. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom, and per prior AfDs and RfDs about Roman historical figures by Avilich. Vaticidal prophet 06:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"North Carolina Press Association"

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

Deceased inventor

This just strikes me as very unlikely search term. No incoming links at all, so it isn't used anywhere. Not mentioned in target article, and if someone was searching this, it is not a safe assumption that they were curious specifically about patent law. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • If anything I think List of inventors would make more sense since I believe it’s more likely thy someone using this as a search term is looking for a list of dead inventors and since the list does mentioned the date of birth and death (if applicable) the list could be used in that way. At the very least it makes more sense than the current target.-- 67.70.101.238 ( talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of inventors per IP (is this our regular IP friend gone dynamic or is it a new one? I haven't been around here for a few days). Not a particularly strong retarget, but this does seem like something people could reasonably search, and the proposed location is much more intuitive. Vaticidal prophet 06:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Infravision

Delete the redirect as no longer useful. Target article used to have a section describing infravision, but it was removed so the redirect is just confusing. Also before being a redirect this article covered the topic, but because it has no current references it was reverted when I restored it. Diego ( talk) 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Refine target as outlined above, after restoring the deleted material noted above. BOZ ( talk) 03:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I am unfamiliar with the game usage, but "infravision" in my experience more commonly refers to "infrared vision", or vision at infrared wavelengths. If there are multiple usages, then this should become a disambiguation page. Nicole Sharp ( talk) 18:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • —" infravision" on Wiktionary. Nicole Sharp ( talk) 19:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • —" infrared vision" on Wikipedia. Nicole Sharp ( talk) 19:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • You make an interesting case, although people at WP:WPDAB would freak out at a disambiguation page linking to a single Wikipedia article. I'll try to work out a page complying with the rules of WP:PRIMARYRED. My main concern is not having a page that directs readers to an article where the topic is not covered at all, but a DAB page which briefly describe the meaning could work. Diego ( talk) 12:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • P.D. I've boldly turned the page into a disambiguation, but now the template shows an error for it not being a redirect. Should I remove the template already, or revert the DAB page until a decision is made? Diego ( talk) 12:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
        @ Diego Moya: I've repaired the template, with your draft DAB following it. Adding a draft to a redirect during RFD is encouraged; you just failed to get the editing quite right, no worries. Narky Blert ( talk) 08:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect to D&D. add redirects here and hatnote to infrared vision. AngusW🐶🐶F ( barksniff) 00:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect to D&D (preferably to a refined target) and hatnote to infrared vision.
"Infravision" has four closely-related meanings in D&D (non- WP:RS links): an inherent ability of some races, a spell and a potion which confer the ability as a temporary effect, and a few artefacts which confer the ability as a permanent effect while equipped. IMO we should cover it somewhere, but it definitely does not deserve a standalone article. The spell is widely considered to be the most useless in the whole arcane spellbook, and the best use of the items is to sell them. Narky Blert ( talk) 08:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Restoring/refining as a redirect isn't appropriate as the target article doesn't have any relevant content. Maybe such content can be (re)added, but that should be somewhere else – maybe a lower-level D&D article, or some new Night vision in fiction? Disambiguation is tempting, but apart from the D&D meaning, there's only one other entry – for Infrared vision. Is infravision ever used to mean that?, I couldn't find any sources during a quick search. Unless something new comes up, I believe the only viable options are deletion, and – preferably, in my opinion – provisional soft retargeting to Wiktionary: wikt:infravision provides a brief definition of the term and so far seems like the least of all evils. – Uanfala (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow further discussion of the proposed alternatives.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

GeorgeNotFound

GeorgeNotFonud is not "Dream". This redirect is misleading, as it gives the impression that this person is Dream, when in fact, he is not. ( WP:RDEL number 10) JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC) (strong delete)

  • No opinion on whether the redirect should be kept but I'd support retaining it and redirecting it to Dream SMP if that ever gets out of draftspace. GeorgeNotFound is mentioned in the Dream article as another related YouTuber. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt. The current target contains basically no information about this person, just a passing mention that they made a video together at some point. There has been a huge amount of disruptive editing in the page history, such as attempts to turn this into an unsourced BLP, and it seems to have become a bit of a sock magnet, so I think EC create protection would be appropriate. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 16:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (STRONG) Keep as a redirect – there's a number of popular YouTubers (who users often search for) whose careers are related to Dream but aren't incredibly independently notable outside of Dream. However, since they're a related topic (mentioned in the article), they should definitely stay redirected to Dream's article, which has information relevant to any readers looking to read about these specific YouTubers mostly-notable because of association with Dream. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 04:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete They are both different youtubers and his name is literally only mentioned once in the entire article, I don't see why this redirect even exists. max 20 characters 🇺🇸 19:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Alibi (Bradley Cooper song)

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: kept. withdrawn by original nominator ( non-admin closure) Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (amateurs)

No mention of an amateur team at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention or other justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. -- BDD ( talk) 16:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget as suggested. Giant Snowman 17:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Fent

While this does appear to sometimes be a slang term for fentanyl, it also is a word in its own right. I'm not really sure whether a wiktionary redirect or deletion is more appropriate here. signed, Rosguill talk 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

II

The term "II" is extremely broad and can refer to a variety of things. 54nd60x ( talk) 12:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Move the dab page at II (disambiguation) to the base title. There's no real mention of the roman numerals in the target (they're listed in the info box and in a bullet point) and a google search turns up a complete mix of results. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is 2 a primary topic for "II"? It probably was for the Romans, but III, IV, etc. suggest it's not now. Move dab to base name. Certes ( talk) 14:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to II (disambiguation) 54nd60x ( talk) 13:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera's Cartoon Corral

Non-notable compilation series redirected unilaterally in 2005, and no longer mentioned at target. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 04:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Globe (Earth)

Should this target earth or globe? I think either could be a reasonable target for this. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete (neither target). Doesn't seem like a plausible search term, no mainspace incoming links and just confusing. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Informal name for the entire world in a geographic context is a plausible search term. Average 0.572 PVS/day is not bad. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 04:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Bilorv's reasoning. (Regarding pageview stats, I think recent hits might be somewhat inflated as a result of it being listed at RfD. If you look at a span of a few months in 2020, it's more like 1 pageview per 6 days or so. I have to imagine that's close to the floor that would be accrued by any nonsense redirect targeting a popular article. e.g. just from people checking the redirects at Special:WhatLinksHere/Earth.) Colin M ( talk) 15:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • FWIW, "the floor" is more like 10 pageviews a year from my experience at RfD – over 1000 pageviews in the history of the pageviews tool shows quite a lot of use for a redirect. J947 messageedits 07:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Globe (disambiguation) where the user would be presented with links to both Globe and Earth, and to me this seems like a plausible search term for either of those (either they mean they want " Planet Earth", or they want globes of the Earth specifically as opposed to things like the Moon). A7V2 ( talk) 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe it's much more likely that the parenthetical qualifier here be interpreted to indicate that Globe is meant as an alternative name for Earth (as in "around the globe") and not a tangible globe of the Earth. Those seeking the latter would simply search for Globe, or at least see it as a top result if this redirect is entered. Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Questionable

question is about questions as a linguistic concept. wikt:questionable means dubious/problematic. The meaning of the word is unrelated to the topic of the article. It just has a superficial orthographic similarity. If I had to redirect this somewhere, something like doubt would be a better target, but really I think it should just be deleted per WP:NOTDIC. Colin M ( talk) 00:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt since these do appear to be used [1]. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect these to their respective Wiktionary entries per Shhhnotsoloud. These give a more direct meaning than the current target offers-why would we want to inconvenience all those readers listed? Regards, SONIC 678 17:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per prior. Vaticidal prophet 06:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 14

Frederic Rene Coudert, Jr,

Bot-created WP:UNNATURAL errors. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all, per nom, who would search with a comma at the end of a term, that isn't stylization? Regards, SONIC 678, 03:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all, noting that versions without misplaced commas exist. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ Shhhnotsoloud I noticed that the bot was creating these as ASCII-only variants of existing redirects using special characters. If you look at the edit summaries of the page creations, you will find the original redirects, of which two still exist. They resulted from page moves though, so should be discussed separately (feel free to nominate them if you wish). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Implausible search terms with commas. Less Unless ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dragonfly,

The page's initial content was referring to a track from The Hunter (Blondie album), but as it does not seem notable (I can only find lyric pages on a quick web search), I suggest deleting this per WP:UNNATURAL. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Move page history to Dragonfly (Blondie song) without leaving a redirect, and retarget to The Hunter (Blondie album). I don't see any indication that the comma is part of the song's stylised title, and there is no reason to otherwise retain a redirect at this title, but under a more specific title this could be kept as a redirect to the album. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Kpg

Not mentioned at target. Might refer to Kapingamarangi language, possibly more. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Island

This redirect page appears to be for something that doesn't even exist, as a Google search merely pulled up a few fanfics and the DTV movie Scooby-Doo! Return to Zombie Island, among other things. IceWalrus236 ( talk) 18:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Spongebob Squarepants: Diner Dash

Delete Not mentioned in target article. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to List of SpongeBob SquarePants video games#Releases, where it is mentioned. The page may have been redirected to it's current target back in 2010 when the game was mentioned there, but it's better to direct readers somewhere where it actually is mentioned. Then again, I'm not 100% sure about this course of action... Regards, SONIC 678 22:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

School Milk Act 1946

No such Act ever existed. Free school milk was introduced by the Provision of Free Milk Regulations 1946, made under Section 49 of the 1944 act. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Purported School Milk Act 1946. Unfortunately Wikipedia's error has been reproduced elsewhere. This is an obvious hoax, and was nominated for speedy as such, but that was declined. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Note for Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia: This hoax was created on 30 April 2008 and removed 14 April 2021. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 04:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The article hoax was removed on 25 October 2010. J947 messageedits 05:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • It is not true that "The article hoax was removed on 25 October 2010". What happened was that an article was blanked and redirected on that date. There was no hoax investigation under the terms of WP:DWHOAX. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
        • And material from the article was incorporated into the target of the redirect. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
          • A redirect does not constitute a hoax. It may be a misnomer, but it was not a hoax if no article content existed. (I didn't realise that the content was merged. That brings a whole host of other problems.) J947 messageedits 04:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is asserted that this is a hoax but there is the possibility that "School Milk Act 1946" is merely a misinterpretation of "Provision of Free Milk Regulations 1946" which is not entirely unreasonable. The fact that this redirect exists does not amount to an assertion that the Act exists. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    Comment Wikipedia should not be encouraging the ignorant equation of an Act with Regulations. We wouldn't call an American Executive Order an Act of Congress would we? Or is blatant rubbish now acceptable? DuncanHill ( talk) 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Account creators

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

Origin of amphibians

While the target section does discuss that there is a general consensus that amphibians are from the target varmints, wouldn't Amphibian#Evolutionary history be a more comprehensive target? Suggest retargeting there. Hog Farm Talk 16:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Burmese–Siamese War (1824–1826)

The corresponding entry in the target page notes that these dates are actually those of the First Anglo-Burmese War, and there was no direct Burmese–Siamese conflict. I don't see the benefit of redirecting this term either to the current target or to Anglo-Burmese War article, so suggest deleting. Paul_012 ( talk) 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The Hong Kong Penitentiary System

This seem to be machine translation of ru:Пенитенциарная система Гонконга [2]. The word "The" need not exist in the title. Also, the capitalization is incorrect. Implausible search with "The". Sun8908 Talk 13:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Burmese–Siamese War (1700–01)

These redirects were red-linked entries in previous versions of the Burmese–Siamese wars article, which were created as one-line substubs by a sockpuppeter who has since been blocked. Other editors then redirected the stubs back to the main list article, but later work on the article has removed mentions of wars corresponding to these dates, which are presumably inaccurate. Suggest deleting these redirects. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 13:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC), updated 15:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. If we can't provide the readers any information regarding these search terms, we probably shouldn't have the redirects. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi (film)

It's gonna be series, not a film, so this redir is wrong and unnecessary and actually the section "Upcoming series" does not exist in Obi-Wan Kenobi AramilFeraxa ( talk) 12:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. This was from the time when it was supposed to be a film. Needless to say it's a failed WP:CRYSTAL redirect. Dominicmgm ( talk) 14:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, failed WP:CRYSTAL redirect, no film by this name actually exists. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 15:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the target article discusses the cancelled film, so seems to be viable as a search term -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 00:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per 86 IP. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 01:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CR

Proposing retarget to Wikipedia:Closure requests, which was recently moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure ( WP:ANRFC) in Wikipedia talk:Closure requests § Requested move 22 March 2021. Multiple editors in the requested move suggested usurping this shortcut for the closure requests noticeboard.

According to pageview data, the closure requests noticeboard received a combined 7,353 pageviews in the last 90 days, while Wikipedia:Cleanup resources received only 344 in the same time period. —  Newslinger  talk 11:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I think it would probably be best to Disambiguate this, as the current target has a hatnote with 4 other pages this could reasonably be targeted to, and we now have two processes with this initialism which have a reasonable claim to it, one because they've been using this shortcut for 15 years and have hundereds of backlinks, the other because it's a widely used noticeboard. I think a reasonable dab page would include Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Closure requests, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, probably a couple of others I've missed. Perhaps claim a new shortcut for the closure requests noticeboard, e.g. no one is using WP:CLR yet. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Closure requests per nom; shortcuts are meant to shortcuts, not longcuts. The incoming links will need to be fixed however. J947 messageedits 01:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would strongly lean toward retargeting if it weren't for the issue of all the historical links to the old shortcut. Is there any way to mass change those so that they don't start pointing to the wrong place? If so, we should do that. I oppose disambiguation, which combines the worst of both: disrupts the history, and prevents WP:Closure requests from obtaining a convenient shortcut it was specifically moved to the new title so it could have. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, either AutoWikiBrowser or JavaScript Wiki Browser can change the old WP:CR links into piped links that point to Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. I can do this if there is consensus to retarget, and anyone is welcome to join in. —  Newslinger  talk 01:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, in that case, Retarget. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Islamia college chiniot,

Delete. Improbable capitalisation and punctuation (trailing comma in the name). – Fayenatic London 11:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, as we should do with all these punctuated redirects. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: this may become moot as user:Störm has AFD'd the article now. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete this redirect with trailing comma. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. Less Unless ( talk) 13:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

AcademicElitism

Not really sure what to make of this one. It's quite literally one of the oldest things on the site – created in Feb 2001 by Jimbo himself. It seems to have had a technical purpose earlier, but I'm not well-versed enough in the coding aspects to know what it was. The issue here is that academic elitism is itself a redirect to elitism, meaning if the redirect is determined to serve a purpose as a plausible misspelling, it should probably at least be retargeted. Leaving this here for more discussion. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 09:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There was an entire article at Academic elitism until 2014, when it was turned into a redirect due to having serious issues and being poorly sourced Diff 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 22:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ukraˈjina

I only nominated one yesterday, but there are more redirects that should be deleted per 1, 2. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all as implausible search terms. I doubt someone would actually use transcription. Less Unless ( talk) 13:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Fuel industry

These redirects do not seem synonymous with their target in my opinion, fuel industry is a generic term that doesn't exclusivley refer to coal. I'm not sure where best to target these though, hence listing them here. Energy industry is the best target I could find, but I could also see an argument for turning them into a DAB or set index for all the various fuel / fuel industry articles ( Coal industry, Petroleum industry etc). 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Energy industry, these are synonymous in practice. The proposed target also prominently lists the main fuel industries in the lede, which accomplishes what an index would provide and more. -- Tavix ( talk) 02:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Dab or retarget. Coal is definitely not correct. While energy industry is an improvement, it is quite a bit broader, and electricity may dominate fuels as energy provider with the energy transition. Dab is better. FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

寶馬汽車

WP:RLOTE. No specific connection between BMW and the Chinese language 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Ritch parents buying their kids BMW's isn't something that's uniquely Chinese, that happens basically everywhere. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 00:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Halo pc

Back when these redirect were created the only halo game available on PC was combat evolved, with the rest of the series being Xbox exclusive, but that is no longer the case. Halo 2 was released on PC in 2007 ish, and the rest of the series have recently been ported to PC as part of Halo: The Master Chief Collection. At this exact moment in time I think the primary topic of these redirects is probably the master chief collection based on a google search, but that's probably recentism due to the collection only recently being released. I propose retargeting these to the article on the franchise. ( Halo (franchise)) 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Halo (franchise)#Game series. Probably didn't need to be discussed here unless there was pushback on the retargetting. Also take a look at the hatnote on that page following any new redirects to it. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all As stated by the nominator, they are now too vague since every Halo game is on PC. They no longer have any navigational purpose as "Halo PC" now means the same thing as "Halo". ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Cominterm

Delete as unlikely misspelling. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 01:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment the M key is next to the N key on an English-language QWERTY keyboard, so how is this not likely? The target is known as Comintern with an N -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 04:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as misspelling of "Comintern". Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a plausible enough typo/misspelling. Pageviews indicate about 2 hits/day, which supports this. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible typo. Less Unless ( talk) 13:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RMS titanic

Capitalization error. RMS Titanic is an already existing redirect. This one is unnecessary. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep this thing, I can see people forgetting to capitalize the first T, and this isn't ambiguous as to what it's meant to refer to. It also seems there's been a huge uptick in pageviews since August 14 last year. Regards, SONIC 678 04:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a perfectly standard {{ R from miscapitalisation}}, and pageview chart shows that external links are likely. J947 messageedits 04:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's loads of redirects like this, so no valid reason for deletion. Dominicmgm ( talk) 06:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bog standard {{ R from miscapitalisation}}, and at 500 - 700 page views a month this appears to be a miscapitalisation used by a lot of readers or that has some external links. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

General Luna Avenue

The redirect, General Luna Avenue, with a complicated history, should be deleted. The article doesn't have a paragraph that's specific to the avenue itself. Originally it was a standalone article that was slapped with notability tag from 2009, then PROD-ed by Doghouse09 on August 25, 2020 ( date in accordance with Philippine time zone), then de-PROD-ed by Djsasso on August 28, 2020 claiming it is a national road. However, it is not listed at the Philippine highway network (perhaps a national tertiary road, but even listed there it will still fail notability guidelines). It was finally redirected to San Mateo, Rizal on March 31, 2021 by Mccapra, citing notability issue. However, as I said earlier the target seems inappropriate, and it is better to have this deleted as there is no such article as " List of roads in Rizal", " List of roads in CALABARZON" or any similar list articles to retain it (unlike those that redirect today at List of roads in Metro Manila). JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 03:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: this discussion also involves two other redirects that formerly redirected here (pinged the redirect creators per their edit histories, to add notice of RFD on those redirects shortly afterward): (@ HueMan1:) (@ Bluemask:) _ JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 03:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

!vote: A version of the article of on the band General Luna (band) was created under the title Gen. Luna Avenue. I haven't read that the band ever referred with that "Avenue" name. -- Bluemask ( talk) 02:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no policy reason to delete. "Gen. Luna Avenue" has x4 mentions in the article and the nom hasn't suggested it's ambiguous. The circuar wikilinks in the article do need to be removed though. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 19:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore article and discuss at AfD. Given the contested claims regarding notability, this needs proper discussion, for which RfD is not the proper venue. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    I agree to Paul 012's suggestion. I originally intended to restore the article and have it submitted to AfD, though for some reason I thought it would be better to request deletion of the redirect directly here. Anyway, I will agree to use the AfD method, so I withdraw this RfD request. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 13:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Medieval(álbum)

The accent above the A may or may not be plausible since the band is Spanish (and this is pretty much the only album with that title we have on Wikipedia, on top of that there's Medieval (album)), but the lack of a space definitely makes this dubiously so. Delete unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC 678 01:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete(per WP:UNNATURAL). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

April 13

State Leader of Myanmar

Delete. This was never a term that appeared in any sources AFAICT, and was fabricated by an editor who is now indefinitely blocked for fabricating content, among other things. So, it's not a useful search term. And even if it was, it's not clear that the current target is appropriate, as it could just as easily be targeted to President of Myanmar. ―  Tartan357  Talk 23:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Clueless newbie

I don't see any usage case for these redirects, and to be honest I think leaving someone a message with a linked "Clueless newbie" directing them to the Help desk would be seen extremely uncivil, verging on as a personal attack. Despite being around since 2005 these have about half a dozen incoming links between them, most being from AfD nominations where the link has no relevance to the Help Desk. These are basically unused, one got 20 page views last year (though 17 of them were in the same mont for some reason) the other got 8. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 23:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ―  Tartan357  Talk 01:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Another thought I just had, how about retargeting to WP:Assume no clue? That would be a lot more relevant to the places where these redirects are actually linked. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 15:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to WP:NOCLUE per 86.23.109.101. I have been seeing him on RFD frequently. SCP-053 ( talk) 10:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Corrida (álbum de Dschinghis Khan)

This was left over from a move in 2008 to change its title to English. Moreover, this band doesn't seem to have a connection to Spanish, and there also isn't an equivalent on the Spanish Wikipedia. I suggest we delete this per WP:RFOREIGN because of that. Regards, SONIC 678 22:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Help:Admonitions

This was supposedly created as a temporary redirect according to the creation summary, for what purpose I don't know. At any rate a help page redirect from a term not used on wikipedia to a long archived question on the teahouse is of no use to anybody. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 22:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, Teahouse discussion archival broke the redirect. Secondly, as you point out it was temporary and, after waiting a bit for any further comment, I forgot to amend it to what appeared to be the conclusion: amboxes. — James R. Haigh ( talk) 2021-04-14Wed21:19:17Z
I fixed/amended it as per the outcome of the original discussion at Teahouse. — James R. Haigh ( talk) 2021-04-14Wed21:41:34Z
Ok, that's fair enough, but those style of article message boxes aren't called "admonitions" on Wikipedia, and as a word that just means "A warning" I wouldn't expect to end up in that template documentation if I was searching help documentation for this term, I'd expect to end up at something relating to the user warning templates. If this is kept I think something like Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings or Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace would be a better target. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 22:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

JLin

Delete or retarget to Jlin. If it were "J. Lin", I suppose that would be different, but it's not really clear why it redirects here; Lin does not appear to go by this name commonly if at all, and it's not referenced in the article itself. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 21:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment it is an Americanism, from street culture. Various other celebs have this form of abbreviation, such as JLo. As bball is a common topic of American street culture, and at one point Jeremy Lin had a high profile in bball, it was used at that point in time. -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 03:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as ambiguous and delete the related hatnotes at Jeremy Lin and Jlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud ( talkcontribs) 11:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Am I Dead Yet

This term does not appear at the target, and I can find no content about this referring to " Sliders". Searching this brings up a biography book, but this is not a likely search term. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 21:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmong genocide

There is no reliable source cited in the target article for this event being called a genocide. ( t · c) buidhe 20:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • There is a recently created article at Hmong Genocide, but to be honest it looks like a POV fork that should be redirected back to the main article on the insurgencey. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 10:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hmong Genocide, then deal with that article as necessary. I'll add that it definitely seems that this term is used in some reliable sources (from a quick Google search), though this is generally in words like "claims of genocide" etc, so I'd still lean keep as a non-neutral redirect, per WP:RNEUTRAL. A7V2 ( talk) 11:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I added Hmong Genocide as it has been redirected. SCP-053 ( talk) 10:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Tanten

Berlingske is known by the nickname Tanten i Pilestræde, but doesn't seem to be commonly known as Tanten. Tanten is Danish, Swedish and Norwegian for "aunt", so the very occasional hits this gets are probably not particularly likely to be by people looking for the newspaper. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sour (álbum)

Not a plausible search term - why would anyone use the term album with an accent above the a when that is not how album is spelt. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I would have to agree with Lil-Unique1. It should be deleted and if not, redirected to SOUR. Jack Reynolds ( talk to me!) ( email me!!) 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nominator's rationale.-- N Ø 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Nobody will ever use that as a search term. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 18:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely search term. (Note: a bot my change where this is pointing, since I just moved SOUR to Sour (Olivia Rodrigo album). — C.Fred ( talk) 19:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a redirect from a very recent page move, and as such K4 comes into play. This is a very implausible search term, but it is still useful as there are likely external links linking to this redirect. We don't want to break those links, as that can often be a big inconvenience to those using the link. At the very least, keep for now so we can see pageviews for this redirect after the move to gauge if there are such incoming links. J947 messageedits 20:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: "álbum" is the spelling of "album" in Spanish and Portuguese, so this could well be the search term used by readers in Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries... it will depend on how many of those there are in coming months, as J947 suggests. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete noting that Sour (album) exists as a redirect to Sour (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. SCP-053 ( talk) 10:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Waˈpanka

Per precedent ( 1, 2), I suggest deleting this redirect from an IPA transcription. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Bedwars

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I have found that Bed Wars is a team survival game on the Hypixel Network. It has pretty extensive coverage on Hypixel Fandom however I couldn't find any IRS that would make it possible to add the info to the target article. So for now I believe it should be deleted. Less Unless ( talk) 17:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Aside from the above, bedwars is a minigame not even unique to Hypixel.   Nixinova T   C   19:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Individual Paralympic Athletes at the Paralympics

No reason why people would be looking for the 2000 Games. There were Individual Paralympic Athletes in 1992, 2000, and Independent Paralympic Athletes at the 2016 Summer Paralympics, as well as in 2018 under the name "Neutral Paralympic Athletes" Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Individual Paralympic Athletes

No reason why people would be looking for the 2000 Games. There were Individual Paralympic Athletes in 1992, 2000, and Independent Paralympic Athletes at the 2016 Summer Paralympics, as well as in 2018 under the name "Neutral Paralympic Athletes" Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Cimarron (people)

This long-standing redirect may be wrongly targeted to a specific use: is Maroons (the target of Cimarrones) a better target for a more general use? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This could go either way. I think it's okay as is, but can see the change. I added a mention of maroons to the lede of the Cimarron people (Panama) article, which helps direct someone who might have been looking for that article. Carter ( talk) 13:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to "Cimarrones" as the word "Cimarron (people)" does not exclusively refer to Panama. SCP-053 ( talk) 10:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Agueeybana

Spanish (indicates that the u is pronounced), not a German umlaut. Agueero survived an RFD, so I'm not listing it here. HotdogPi 00:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

April 12

Christmas in June

Isn't mentioned at the target, isn't linked to from any articles, and has less than 10 monthly page views. Google brings up a song by AJR. Apparently it was created from a page move by @ Jax 0677:, but the page history isn't that interesting (just a few moves). I would say delete or retarget to OK Orchestra. Mattx8y ( talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Voltswagen

This was an April Fool's joke by Volkswagen, and does not appear to be considered due enough to be mentioned at the target. Delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added at the target or another justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Proto gaelic

"Proto-gaelic" doesn't appear to be the proper name of any language, reconstructed or otherwise. The closest equivalent as far as I can tell is Proto-Celtic language, which is the constructed predecessor of the Celtic language family, which the Gaelic (Goidelic) belongs to. I would suggest redirecting to there unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Proto-Celtic per nom. 053pvr ( talk) 02:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Proto-Gaelic would be the ancestor of all the Gaelic languages, not all the Celtic languages. The Gaelic languages are also known as the Goidelic languages, so Proto-Gaelic is equivalent to Proto-Goidelic. We don't have an article on the Proto-Goidelic language, but the closest thing to it is in fact Primitive Irish, the oldest attested Goidelic language. So while Proto-Goidelic (a reconstructed language) is not exactly identical to Primitive Irish (an attested language), Primitive Irish does seem to be the best available redirect target. — Mahāgaja · talk 10:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Planetary or gender symbols

Unsure of where these should target, but this bears discussion. Male symbol and female symbol both target gender symbol, for context. Elli ( talk | contribs) 09:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Both the article on planet symbols and the ones about the genders are relevant and explain what these symbols mean. Glades12 ( talk) 10:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

* Change to a disambiguation article for each symbol, giving pointers to both relevant articles. (I can't help wondering if this is a moot question. The only way to enter these symbols is to copy/paste from an external document, where the notation is likely explained already). If the consensus is for 'keep', then a 'redirects here' notice would be needed at the head of each of the planetary articles, which I don't like because it is such a non-problem.-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC) As this RFD has been relisted, I am striking my first response so as to make it clearer that I support the proposal by 053pvr below. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 00:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate or retarget to their entries on the Miscellaneous Symbols page which defines their usage per above. These are also used as alchemical symbols and I think there's an argument to be made that ♀️ is associated with Feminist symbology (Which I'm amazed I wasn't able to find an article on). 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I consider this the next best alternative to my own preference. My only concern about it is that the Miscellaneous Symbols page is a bit intimidating for visitors unfamiliar with the concept of codepoints, not easy to find the symbol you want and not obvious that it has links to more detailed articles. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC) As this RFD has been relisted, I am striking this response so as to make it clearer that I support the proposal by 053pvr below. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 00:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @ John Maynard Friedman: If we were to retarget to the list I would suggest putting an {{ Anchor}} template in the relevant entries so the redirects would point at the specific table entries. I can see the argument that a pair of dab pages could be better though. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 14:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added , ⚧️, and here as well since it's in the same vein. – MJLTalk 18:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, just ignore the first two. That wasn't helpful. – MJLTalk 18:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

* Retarget "♂️" and "♀️" to "Gender symbol" as that is what they are in Unicode. Keep the other ones. 053pvr ( talk) 05:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  • They should be targeted according to their unicode text definition per WP:EMOJI. How they appear varies by computer platform and font. E.g. ♂️ , i.e. MALE SIGN, may have an appearance in some places that has no relation to mars but will always have a constant consortium-defined text definition. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 20:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Just a note to observe that the effect of Godsy's response would be the same as the effect of 053pvr's. They reach the same conclusion from different starting points. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment "☿" (U+263F) is Mercury according to Unicode, so seems to point to the proper place, as it is the planet symbol. -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 14:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment for the male and female symbols, whatever happens, a hatnote should exist to the other topic (be it planet table or gender table; or their respective individual articles) -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 14:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this, but am instead relisting after some discussion on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 13:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget ♂️, ♀️, ♂, and ♀ to Gender symbol to reflect their Unicode defintions. For example, Planet symbol#Mars says "Its Unicode codepoint is U+2642 MALE SIGN (HTML ♂ · ♂)." ☿ should be kept as its Unicode definition is Mercury. -- Tavix ( talk) 13:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment For the benefit of others who cannot see the difference between ♂️ and ♂ (because of personal visual impairment or because they are using a web browser that does not discriminate), it is due to a clever clever URL "magic": compare https://webot.org/info/en/?search=%E2%99%82%EF%B8%8F with https://webot.org/info/en/?search=%E2%99%82 : both address %E2%99%82 (U+2642) but the first adds decorative effects that are not visible to many visitors. I don't think we need a specific MOS rule to know that this is not a good idea and certainly not a basis to have different redirect targets according to appearance. [So, in case it needs to be said unambiguously, my vote is for all appearances of U+263F to redirect to Mercury (planet) and for all appearances of U+2640 and U+2642 to Gender symbol.] -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Retarget all to Gender symbol per the fact that all these symbols are defined in Unicode as gender symbols. 053pvr ( talk) 01:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

BMZ GmbH

A redirect from a random battery manufacturer to the article on smart batteries, where they are not mentioned in the article prose. Given the next edit of the redirect creator was to add an inappropriate external link to the companies website it seems it might have been made as part of a minor spam campaign. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to de:BMZ (Unternehmen). We don't have a English Wikipedia article that discusses this company, and this search term is indeed in German, so an interwiki redirect would be the best option. 053pvr ( talk) 02:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree strongly with this - redirects to other language projects are always deleted with unanimous or near unanimous support when brought here, and we don't have an appropriate soft redirect template as there should be 0 redirects to other language projects in mainspace. if you want to add a link to the German language article you should use Template:Interlanguage link, not a redirect. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

{ꭜ, ꭝ, ꭞ, ꭟ}

Should these redirects target the Unicode block or the generic article about superscripts? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I think they should redirect to Teuthonista. That's what these characters are used for. In my mind, the fact that they're encoded in Unicode, or a specific block of Unicode, is secondary to what they're used for. For example, doesn't redirect to Unicode block Latin Extended-D, it redirects to Heng. It would be nice if these characters actually appeared in the Teuthonista article but I don't have the time or expertise to expand it. DRMcCreedy ( talk) 16:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Teuthonista is my ideal destination but Unicode subscripts and superscripts would be my second choice. Not that I'll oppose any outcome of this discussion. DRMcCreedy ( talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think Latin Extended-E currently looks like the best target. My computer doesn't have a font that displays these characters, so I just see a box with e.g. "AB5F" in it. This target explains what U+AB5F is, and it seems to be the only one that does that at the moment. Sadly, it does not explain which language uses this character, which would be more encyclopedic. Assuming these symbols are only used for one purpose, I agree with DRMcCreedy that ideally, Teuthonista would be the target. But first I think it needs to list the characters and Unicode code points (and hopefully some day a picture, for those of us who don't have the right fonts) for each of the characters in this writing system so I could make sense of why I was redirected there. (We typically see that in a section titled something like "Computer encoding".) -- Beland ( talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If these characters were put into Unicode for Teuthonista then that is where they should be directed to. Spitzak ( talk) 18:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: I am not quite a fan of targeting redirects at pages that do not mention them when mentions in other articles exist, so I would prefer a different target than the discussed Teuthonista. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Latin Extended-E. That article is the only place where these characters are mentioned. 053pvr ( talk) 02:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

शिवाजी महाराज

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local target for this page. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain {{ soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). See here for precedents. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Defined Lines

Not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm ( talk) 03:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete not mentioned. 053pvr ( talk) 02:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Less Unless ( talk) 17:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Basit Saeed

Article was deleted at [4] (I closed). I fail to see how this is a logical redirect if the person is not notable. Dennis Brown - 23:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirection to a list is a reasonable alternative to deletion isn't it? Given that the chap played five top-class cricket matches (see CricInfo) there's a claim that can be made about notability (if he played one Division 4 football match in the UK he'd "qualify" for an article), even if no information beyond stats can be found about him. The list didn't exist at the time the AfD was done; it does now. It's not an unreasonable redirect imo. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 08:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a perfectly reasonable redirect IMO. BST is right I don't think the redirect existed at the time, and if it did so then it would have been discussed as a WP:ATD in the discussion. The majority of cricketers at AfD are resulting in redirect like this. FWIW the player also currently passes the cricket SNG (was deleted as there wasn't enough for GNG) so there is some notability there, just not enough for a full article. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete He is not mentioned in the article. 053pvr ( talk) 02:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
053pvr, Have added him to the list. It's likely the list was made from Category:Sialkot cricketers and given the page was deleted before list created, is why he wasn't included. This shows he played for them though. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Tom Marlowe

Not mentioned on target page, and I can find nothing online that links Brian Cox and Tom Marlowe - absolutely baffled why this redirect was created. Could be eligible for speedy as G1 or, given the creator's edit history, as G2. schetm ( talk) 00:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

April 11

Template:Taxonomy/Hildebrandtia

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

Mokick

Delete completely, not redirect to a different target. German term, possibly slang, has no use or bearing in En Wiki. Created in 2011, there is no accompanying text, only redirect to title. A quick check for several random versions circa 2011/2012 returns no inclusion into the article body. Term is not part of UK culture, unlikely to be in US/Canada, IMO, unsure of Australian but would doubt it. Can't understand why this was created. FYI, a similar term is Kutte, meaning cut-off clothing, again not used and hardly known within En first speakers. Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: Appears to refer to a specific type of light motorcycle (in de.wiki, Mokick redirects to Kleinkraftrad, which translates roughly to light motorcycle), but we have no mention of that in the target article on en.wiki. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Big (M|m)edia

These redirects should target the same place. Note that both redirects have an old article in their history. J947 messageedits 20:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Convert Big Media to a disambig page and redirect Big media to Big Media since both target articles are a good choice. It is conventional to treat Big Oil, Big Tobacco etc as proper nouns so the capital M should be preferred User:GKFX talk 20:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you about the name, since it was parallelism with the " Big Tech" article that inspired me make the make the "Big Media" redirect. In thinking about a disambiguation page, it occurs to me that " Concentration of media ownership" and " Media conglomerate" aren't clearly distinctive topics. I made a suggestion to merge to merge the two articles at Talk:Concentration of media ownership#Merge with "Media conglomerate"?. -- RobLa ( talk) 05:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Corporate media

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

I think we should have another discussion about this. The first RfD closed with preference to send the recently-redirected article to AfD. The AfD closed as delete, but a few days later, the redirect was re-created. So here we are again. Last time the redirect was targeted to concentration of media ownership, this time it is targeted to media conglomerate. I think this target is better than the last one, but still not "right" IMO. My opinion is that Wikipedia should have something on the topic, whether a redirect, dab page, or stub. I might be leaning towards a dab page.

As an aside, I'm not comfortable with how this situation was procedurally handled. I think that it would have been better to at first discuss the merits of the redirect at RfD and if a consensus to delete occurred, it would be sent to AfD. That said, the old article due to its importance probably should've been discussed at AfD. I don't know really, but it seems wrong to end up back at RfD again. J947 messageedits 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I created this redirect today. As the deleted article was apparently very old I think it is important to put something at that title, and the current target seemed to be the best of two options discussed at the AfD. A disambiguation page would also be an excellent idea. I've got no strong views on the final outcome, just that it shouldn't be left empty. User:GKFX talk 20:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep "Corporate media" refers to media which is owned by a corporation, and "Media conglomerate seems o be the best title we've got. SCP-053 ( talk) 02:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer-to-peer energy trading

Currently peer-to-peer energy trading redirects to a short section on 'Virtual Net Metering' on the 'Net Metering' page. This is justified by a reference to a 2016 conference paper, "The Potential Value of Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading in the Australian National Electricity Market". However, this is not consistent with the literature on peer-to-peer energy trading which has grown substantially since 2016. A better definition is that peer-to-peer energy trading is a market design architecture which enables participants to directly negotiate energy transactions with one another, for which metering is only a component (see e.g. "Peer-to-peer and community-based markets: A comprehensive review" from Renew. Sustain. Energy Reviews doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.036). Virtual net metering is instead related to billing arrangements for off-site distributed generation which assumes there is a utility or supplier acting as an intermediary (see e.g. NREL's definition https://www.nrel.gov/state-local-tribal/basics-net-metering.html). My proposal is that instead of a redirect, a new page on 'Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading' is created, with suitable links to the net metering page where appropriate. Minister of the left ( talk) 18:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is nothing to stop an editor creating an article to replace the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
            * Apologies, I didn't realise this. How can a new article be created to replace the redirect?
  • Delete That term is very obscure. Don't think anyone would search it. SCP-053 ( talk) 02:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment It's had 544 pageviews in the last 30 days; I doubt that all of those are a result of this discussion. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Paralvinella

One of two genera in this family, no reason to have a redirect - in fact, it's presence makes the creation of an article less likely. Animal lover 666 ( talk) 14:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Craft City

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep Fictitious city, in Bitz and bob episodes. Episode setting. ACQ322Acuity ( answer me) 10:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not mentioned at target. Anyone who knows what Craft City is would know the programme- this isn't a TV fandom website. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Church-state relations

I think this is an ambiguous redirect, and I don't think the current target is equivalent to it's name. There are a load of other articles on topics where there are relations between church and state which could also be valid targets, e.g. state religion and Religion in politics. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 17:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. As creator of the redirect, I agree the target is not equivalent and happy for it to be redirected to another page like Church and State, for instance. -- Caorongjin ( talk) 17:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I missed that dab page, retargeting there looks like an ideal solution. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 19:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Heimin

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

Joe Cell

These seem to be a non notable perpetual motion device that is not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else in the encyclopaedia. I can't tag these redirects as they were semi-protected due to the repeated recreation of spam, could someone please tag them on my behalf? 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 17:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Tagged. Delete per nom. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. SCP-053 ( talk) 02:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Championnat de France de football féminin

I propose a retarget to Fédération des sociétés féminines sportives de France#Sports (or I can add an anchor to the specific paragraph on the inter-war championship on that page). As far as I can tell, Championnat de France de football féminin has only been used by the inter-war football championship, the most text of which is at the proposed location. Most of the Division 1 Féminine is the current (since 1974) competition, which doesn't seem to have used that name Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 11:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Giant Snowman 11:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per all. SCP-053 ( talk) 02:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nilpotent endomorphism

Similarly to how Idempotent endomorphism redirects to the more general article Idempotent (ring theory), I suggest this be retargeted to Nilpotent. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Neutral for the two targets (not deletion though): On one hand, the nilpotent transformation in the second paragraph of Nilpotent matrix is precisely the notion of a nilpotent endomorphism (just for vector spaces) and may be more useful for someone searching specifically for nilpotent endomorphisms than the more general article (a reader of the more general article looking for nilpotent endomorphism may not realize that they need to consider a nilpotent endomorphism as an element of an endomorphism ring). On the other hand, the more general article is technically correct since a nilpotent endomorphism does not need to be on a vector space. — MarkH21 talk 17:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose if asked to take a side. The thing is the terms like "nilpotent endomorphism" mostly appear in the context of linear algebra or representation theory. Since it is synonymous with " nilpotent transformation" and that one redirects to "nilpotent matrix", this one needs to share the same target. (This is a matter of tension between common usage and math precision and the common usage should typically be weighted higher.) —- Taku ( talk) 23:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think that this is actually a phrase. SCP-053 ( talk) 02:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @ SCP-053: a google scholar search turns up loads of mathematical papers using this phrase, so clearly this is a real thing. We don't delete these kind of technical redirects because someone "thinks" it isn't a real phrase, we are guided by usage in reliable sources. I don't know enough about this topic to make a judgement, so I'm going to stay quiet in this discussion, but I would make the suggestion that you should really read the advice at WP:Contributing to complicated discussions. Knowing when you're out of your depth and don't know enough about a topic to make a sensible judgment is an important skill to have. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 18:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Business Information Systems

"Business Information System" is not mentioned at the target in plural, singular, capitalised or uncapitalised forms. Is there a better target, or should these redirects be deleted as ambiguous (with, for example, YTJ (Finnish government service))? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is a plausible search term for the subject of the article, so it is fine for the redirect to exist, even if it is not mentioned at the target. WP:HARMLESS. SCP-053 ( talk) 02:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SCP-053 I don't believe these are the same thing, I'm certainly not seeing them being used in an interchangeable way with a google search. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 18:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:Naming convention

I was looking for Wikipedia:Naming conventions when I entered this; not sure the current target's topic can be called "naming conventions". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Just to give some history: This redirect goes back a long way... there was a time back in the mid 2000s when we talked about articles having a “name”. This caused a lot of confusion because people were not sure whether we were referring to the name of the subject or the “name” of of the article (not always the same). We realized that we needed to separate these two concepts better, by shifting terminology... we decided to stop talking about an article’s NAME, and instead talk about an article’s TITLE.
So... we changed our WP:Naming conventions guideline (which mostly talked about how to “name” an article) to WP:Article titles (which was soon promoted to Policy status).
However, there were a few parts of the old WP:Naming conventions guideline that dealt with how to present the subject’s name beyond an article title, (such as whether to present nicknames in quotes or parentheses). These were primarily STYLE issues, so we hived these bits off, and created a separate MOS:Naming convention guideline to deal with these issues.
Hope this history helps clarify why the various policies and guidelines are (currently) entitled as they are, why the various redirects exist, and why they (currently) point where they do.
I spell it out not to support or object to any new proposals, but merely to inform the discussion. Blueboar ( talk) 21:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Blueboar This makes sense to me, though I am still not sure if the target is really about "naming". I guess the hatnote which is already present at the target does help, and my search using "MOS:" instead of "WP:", which was my motivation for this nomination, was a bit unfortunate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Whoops, apologies for being oblivious. I guess that means I'm fine with keeping this as-is. - Eureka Lott 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Article titles. Probably what people are looking for when they typed this in. SCP-053 ( talk) 02:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment Someone seems to have pinged me here, althought I can't see their comment. SCP-053 ( talk) 02:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Adio (company)

"Adio" is not mentioned at the target. I understand from Google that K2 once owned the brand (but doesn't now) so unless the article is going to mention that I think it's misleading to redirect to the current target. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • It was merged in 2014, first to Jarden then moved to K2 Sports. It was recently made into a separate article again and removed from K2 Sports but was redirected again because of a copyright problem with the new article's content, and the section of the target page can still be restored and updated. If there is consensus that the mention there shouldn't be restored or it isn't a useful redirect, it would have to be moved somewhere out of the main namespace so there is still attribution for old revisions of the other articles. Peter James ( talk) 14:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 04:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and add info about "Adio (company)" back into "K2 Sports" per Peter James. SCP-053 ( talk) 02:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Joseph A. Manchin III**

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

April 10

Þ̧

This is not one Unicode character, it uses the combining cedilla. There is no mention of it in the article now and there wasn't when the redirect was created. [5] [6] It was mentioned on the talk page ( Talk:Cedilla#All these letters but no explanation was provided. It's an unlikely combination as there appears to be no language that uses both Þ and the cedilla. (It was included in a template but was removed in 2013 [7].) Peter James ( talk) 21:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

DKC TV cartoon.

Delete The full stop makes this a very unlikely search term UnitedStatesian ( talk) 21:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Technological Liberation

No mention of "liberation" at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete; yes, "liberation" is not mentioned in the target: I wish creators of links like this would provide some justification for the link in their initial edit summary creating the link. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

DList of Dragon Ball Z episodes (season 9)

Delete very unlikely typo. Properly spelled List of Dragon Ball Z episodes (season 9) exists. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete looking at the history of the target page this was a typo introduced in an attempt to reverted an undiscussed page move in 2010 which was fixed about a minute later.-- 67.70.101.238 ( talk) 02:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

DONAL HENAHAN

Delete per WP:RCAPS UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose for DONAL HENAHAN only. Donal Henahan's name is usually capitalized in print in The New York Times over his many decades as a writer; and many readers may copy paste his name into a search on wikipedia. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's search does not require a capitalization match, and we don't have similar redirects for other Times writers (e.g. R. W. APPLE JR.), as doing so would certainly be WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      That's an essay, and one that I don't think applies here. Maybe try applying WP:COMMON. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments aren't helpful. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with 4meter4 that if a name is used in all caps, that it would be plausible to copy-paste it to Wikipedia in all caps. I think WP:RCAPS actually supports this interpretation, namely When there is a connection between the subject and an alternative capitalization, it is usually kept. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Except that even if the all caps is copy-pasted, we no longer need a redirect in order for the searchbox to function. Try it! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 20:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The search function isn't the only way of finding a redirect – many people use the URL bar to search (which is case-sensitive) for one. J947 messageedits 21:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I’ve set up heaps of redirects in the format SURNAME, given name as that was the default for the FISA (World Rowing) database. Generally for Eastern European names where the English article name is different. Schwede 66 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Edens Zero

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move has been reversed

Wikipedia:UC

It should be made a disambiguation, seeing that there are three other pages ( Wikipedia:Changing username, Wikipedia:User contributions, and Wikipedia:User categories) that also fits the acronym. DePlume ( talk) 06:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC) - edited on 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, longstanding redirect, hatnotes are sufficient. — Kusma ( 𐍄· 𐌺) 14:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I am not debating the worthiness of keeping the redirect. I am debating its target. DePlume ( talk) 15:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotReallySoroka ( talkcontribs)
      • Yes, I understand that. My thinking is that the shortcut does send people who know what it has been used for in the last 14 years to the right place. People who don't know and think it means "changing username" or "user categories" need an extra click to get to the place they want. If we change to a disambiguation page, nobody gets where they want to go directly (everyone has to do the extra click). Kind of defeats the purpose of a shortcut. — Kusma ( 𐍄· 𐌺) 18:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per nom -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 09:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Not many uses, and some are intended to link to Wikipedia:User categories. WP:WPUC is unused and could redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California. Peter James ( talk) 17:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Taper ratio

The quantity is mentioned only in passing in the target, and is also mentioned in a totally different context in Space elevator. The original article was an unsourced, 2-sentence stub that fails WP:DICDEF and lacked context. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( talkwork) 05:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Opoka

Created by blocked UPE sockpuppet to promote Mulroy. This is the name of a person that has a passing mention in the target article, but does not seem to grant a redirect. MarioGom ( talk) 13:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nasibi

This term does not appear anywhere in the article, much less with a reliable source, so there is no context to its relationship to Shias and Sunnis. ... discospinster talk 16:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Gents (Swedish band)

The redirect target, a compilation album that one of this band's songs appears on, has now itself been redirected as non-notable. The band is not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia as far as I can tell, so these redirects should be deleted. Lennart97 ( talk) 00:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

April 9

Vietnam flashback

An editor changed it from Post-traumatic stress disorder to the current redirect but I feel it should target the former instead seeing as it's a nickname for PTSD. Instead of potentially starting an edit war I'm gonna leave it to be discussed. Dominicmgm ( talk) 20:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Return to original target. PTSD is much more relevant that the history of the war.-- Grahame ( talk) 08:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Rosen Trap

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Rosen Trap

Talk:Abdulla2021/sandbox

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

Allentown, Pennsylva.

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

UNC-R

The abbreviation "UNC-R" has never been a correct name for NC State, and the usage of "UNC-R" is mostly a derogatory reference from rival schools who would already know how to find the article on Wikipedia under the correct name. I even checked the creator's user page, it indicates that he went to UNC-CH, which is usually the source of unwarranted references to "UNC-R". 2600:1700:FDF1:1FC0:D83F:388:E5D5:D1A5 ( talk) 17:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment the article states this was founded as the University of North Carolina facility in Raleigh as North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, so it would seem to be a viable search term. I don't see where the letters UNC-R become derogatory, as it seems to state what it was when it was founded. I don't seem any expletives in those letters, unless there is an expanded acronym that elides the swear words. You could tag it as a {{ R from incorrect term}} -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 00:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Met Him Last Night (Demi Lovato song)

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

Enola(Waterworld)

Malformed redirect with lack of space. Dominicmgm ( talk) 13:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I recently created the correctly formatted Enola (Waterworld) that redirects to this one's target. Also, during the malformed one's time as an article about the character, it was never moved to the correct counterpart. Regards, SONIC 678 19:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

London Buses route 659

Non-existent London Bus route which has never ever existed before. Could be potentially speedy deleted but I'm taking it to RfD. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 11:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

London Buses route 691

Non-existent London Bus route from a quick search on the TfL website at [8]. May have existed in the past but currently doesn't exist. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 11:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

London Buses route N13

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

London Buses route 611

Makes no sense to have a redirect called "London Buses route 611" when the 611 bus isn't a London Bus at all. A more sensible redirect would be something like Uno Buses Route 611 redirected to List_of_bus_routes_in_London#Non-TfL_bus_routes_in_Greater_London. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 10:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Note - From my analysis of Non-TfL bus routes, the 611 and the 614 below are the only bus route redirects which aren't TfL bus routes. There are no others. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 10:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine to the "Non-TfL bus routes in Greater London" section. Plausible search term, and there is a bus route numbered 611 in the list. The vast majority of searcher's aren't going to know or care who the operator is, or that it isn't technically a London Buses route, they'll just be looking for information on bus route 611 that operates in London, and having one route that doesn't follow the standard naming pattern for the hundreds of other routes in the list is likely to be more confusing than helpful. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    No because the other Non-TfL bus routes do not have redirects and it's implausible because London Buses do not operate the 611 bus. There is no London Buses route 420, London Buses route 515 or the other non-TfL bus routes in the list. Also, it's a rarely used search term. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine per the ip above. That WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST (but should) is irrelevant. Redirects exist to help people find the content they are looking for, regardless of whether they know all the details about it before they've read the content. There is a route 611 that runs in London and so this is a perfectly logical search term. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ Thryduulf: I am still not convinced to why it's okay to have a redirect starting with "London Buses" for a bus route that isn't operated by London Buses. This redirect and the other one below both aren't rarely used. Secondly, if I put all the points that I made aside, a quick look on the Uno bus tracker website shows that the 611 bus service is non-existent. There is a 614 bus but there's not 611 bus. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 22:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I used the Uno bus tracker website which is here. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    The 611 only runs during the day Monday to Friday during University term times [9] so, it's not surprising that they aren't featured on the bus tracker on a Saturday evening during the Easter holiday. As for the London Buses prefix, it's acceptable because it's plausible that someone looking for a bus route in London will look for a page starting "London Buses route" whether that service is operated by London Buses or not. See Category:Redirects from incorrect names for thousands of other examples of redirects that are not correct being used to guide people to the content they are looking for. Just because a redirect is lightly used does not mean it's harmful, and we do not delete redirects unless they are. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ Thryduulf: Actually, no. The 610, 612 and 614 bus routes are not in service today but are still featured on the Uno bus tracker website saying when they will next be in service. This is not the case with the 611 bus; it's literally non-existent. If the 611 bus existed, it would show on the bus tracker website saying when the next 611 bus service will run on which day. Also, if you think it's so useful, why can't it be moved to something like London Buses route 611 (Non-TfL)? Right now, it's so misleading because it looks like it is going to a 611 bus route operated by TfL which doesn't exist. How about support the alternative proposal of moving it? Pkbwcgs ( talk) 10:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    London Buses route 611 (Non-TfL) would not be a plausible search term so I oppose that suggestion. The whole point is that we do not require people to know the operator before they look it up. Redirects do not have to be correct, they simply need to be plausible search terms. If they are incorrect then the target should correct any misunderstands, misrememberings, etc. and this one does. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ Thryduulf: Why would it not be plausible? It's a Non-TfL bus route and it would come up if someone typed up "London Buses route 611" in the search bar, it would come up. If not deletion, at least moving it to a more correct name would make sense. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    The internal search engine is only one of many different ways people use to find Wikipedia content and one of only a minority where search suggestions are available. There is only one route 611 so disambiguation is not needed, but even if it was needed then the undisambiguated title would always either redirect to the primary topic or disambiguate between them meaning that even if moved (and see WP:MOVEREDIRECT for why it's generally better not to do that) a redirect at this title would still be needed. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

London Buses route 614

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#London Buses route 614

Com.com

As of 2021 http://com.com does no longer redirect to CNET but is instead parked. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. The URL is mentioned at the target article, and as far as I can tell, that's the only place it's mentioned. There are a bunch of articles with faulty references like nytimes.com.com, so I might have overlooked something. - Eureka Lott 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Chees

Recognising that April Fools is now over and that this is a proper RfD, this redirect should be deleted. It's tagged as a misspelling but it could refer to cheese, chess, cheers, etc. An alternative could be to retarget to Cheez but I prefer deletion. Anarchyte ( talkwork) 05:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • There's also the Chees (disambiguation) redirect, that might be worth bundling here. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Chee; the surname can have a plural, not sure if the others can, but any other significant uses can be mentioned there. Peter James ( talk) 13:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Chee, for the same reason as Peter James. Kokopelli7309 ( talk) 23:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. None of the entries at Chee naturally take a plural. As a typo, too ambiguous to be useful. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment both the given name and the surname nautrally take plural forms. Like "keeping up with the Joneses" uses the plural form for "Jones", a surname. "there are 3 Toms in class" takes the plural for "Tom", a given name. Thus the given name and surname "Chee" can use "Chees" as plural. -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 08:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
      Yes, but Chee just has links for Chee (surname) or Chee (given name), rather than a list of names that could be plural. I guess searchers could be seeking a list of people with the name, which would be plural because there are multiple such people with articles. In such a case it seems like a pretty week search term if that's what was really being sought, which seems unlikely, and will bring the searcher to a dab page where none of the entries can be plural and they still have to choose given name or surname. So search results seem better here to me, given the potential that it could just be a typo as discussed above. There seems to be no consistent way to handle plurals of names. For example Nicks targets Nix (surname) rather than Nick or Nick (disambiguation) (though there is a hatnote). Joneses targets The Joneses and not Jones or any of its entries. (These could probably benefit from RfDs too, as I'm not sure their current targets are best.) Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate unorthodoxly as ambiguous. The vast majority of readers finding this redirect will not be looking for Chee and as such, a retarget there would be suboptimal in my opinion. Cheese and chess are likely what most readers are looking for. J 947 's public account 23:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep a google search shows that "cheese" is what the vast majority of people using this word on the internet mean. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

DSV limiting Factor

Nothing links to this redirect. The redirect is improperly capitalized (it's a ship's name). Renamed to [DSV Limiting Factor], seeking to delete this redirect. sbb ( talk) 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. @ Sbb: redirects generally aren't moved ( WP:MOVEREDIRECT) but never mind. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as housekeeping per nominators rationale. Less Unless ( talk) 16:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, miscapitalisations are perfectly plausible search terms. J947 messageedits 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as a miscapitalization and as record of a page move. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Does the Flower Bloom?

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Does the Flower Bloom?

Muscle fiber

Target had been Myocyte for six years, recently changed w/o discussion. MB 18:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak keep In my medically uninformed assessment, the new target does appear to be more appropriate than the old one. MB, is there any specific issue that you have with the new target other than a procedural concern? signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, No, just a long standing redirect changed without discussion or much reason ("better target"). I am similarly uninformed and after looking at both articles wasn't sure and was trying to get a more expert opinion. Aren't muscle fibers found in all types of muscle, not just skeletal muscle? If so, why is the target an article on skeletal muscle rather than Myocyte which seems to be more broad. MB 20:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Given that the long-standing redirect was the product of a bot-correction of a double redirect, I wouldn't implicitly put much faith in the old redirect target, even if it has been around for 5 years. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to add related redirects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've added some related redirects that MB found, but am still not sure what the best solution here is (other than that most of thse should probably point at th same place). Simply pointing to Muscle may be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirects for Myocyte. We had this discussion before "muscle fiber" /" muscle fibre" is a synonym of "muscle cell", which is the definition of myocyte. The redirection to Skeletal muscle leaves out the fact that muscle fibres/fibers occur in cardiac tissue as well as in skeletal muscle. It is also a vertebrate centric change. There are invertebrate animals (without skeletons) that have muscle fibers, but they do not have skeletons and therefore have no skeletal muscle. The undiscussed change to the redirect is unwarranted. Also, it is not clear what the previous "keep" vote is for. None of these redirects are up for deletion are they? The term "muscle fiber" / "muscle fibre" is extremely common in the literature, so deletion or the redirects would not make sense. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 01:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as is - muscle cell still redirects to myocyte ; the redirects were made in accordance with the MeSH entry which distinguishes between myocyte and muscle fiber still referring to myocyte for cardiac muscle cell. [10] Do invertebrates have muscle cells or muscle fibers? As far as I can see a muscle fiber only refers to a skeletal muscle cell. Otherwise this could be mentioned in Other animals.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Muscle tissue consists of elongated cells also called as muscle fibers - taken from muscle tissue page.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 16:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Also image used in infobox on skeletal muscle page uses diagram from Seer cancer training clearly showing use of muscle fiber describing it as a single cell and multi-nuclear. [11] -- Iztwoz ( talk) 18:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Iztwoz: The the MeSH entry is specifically about human medicine. It does not cover non-human biology. Muscle fibers are found in nearly all animals (except sponges). Using the the MeSH entry over other viewpoints violates WP:NPOV.
    But even in humans, muscle cell/fibers occur in both skeletal and cardiac muscle. See pp.276-284 in Marieb & Hoehn, Human Anatomy & Physiology, 8th edition, which is a standard textbook in universities. I quote from page 276: "First, skeletal and smooth muscle cells ... are called muscle fibers." So fibres are synonymous with "cell" in muscle tissue, and are not restricted in use of the term to skeletal muscle.
    It is easy to find evidence of the term used for invertebrates, for example in this paper on the hydrodynamics of jellyfish swimming: [12] "Swimming via jet propulsion involves contraction of circular muscle fibers "Swimming via jet propulsion involves contraction of circular muscle fibers..." Or also this article [13] on contractile strength of muscle fibres in giant clams. In this article muscle fibre is even a keyword for the article. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiplikator

These were mass-created by a script, and might fall afoul of WP:RFOREIGN, since multiplication doesn't have a special connection to German. Delete them unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC 678 00:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, no connection to the language. The editor who made this made about 500 of these redirects with a bot, which I've slowly been sorting through. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 08:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Implausible in this context. Less Unless ( talk) 21:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment "Multiplikator" can be taken as a {{ R from typo}} for multiplicator and retargeted to Schur multiplier where "multiplicator" leads to. "Multiplikand" can be taken as a {{ R from typo}} for multiplicand, and is thus correctly targeted -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 08:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Lexi Rabe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Lexi Rabe

April 8

Caroline Henry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Caroline Henry

Coalición Cívica

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

Incompetent valves

I don't believe that this specific term is mentioned at the target.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  08:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for a full 7 days' consideration for the redirects added since the discussion was first opened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Put to the sword

This could also refer to Capital punishment.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  07:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Soft Redirect to it's wiktionary entry? I couldn't find any articles discussing this phrase. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 10:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • See Google book search "put to the sword" "no quarter" to see that the two terms are very closely related. One is the action of killing when no quarter has given. Quite a few of these books refer to the end of Cromwell's siege of Drogheda and "put to the sword" is used idiomatically as Cromwell in his report uses the term "knocked on the head" for the way they tended to kill priests and others. -- PBS ( talk) 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually checking the report Cromwell uses both the sword and head descriptions: "were ordered by me to put them all to the Sword; and indeed being in the heat of action, I forbade them to spare any that were in Arms in the Town" and "I believe all their Fryers were knockt on the head promiscuously". The phrases sword quarter also often used in conjunction about the Siege of the Alamo eg The Edinburgh Review - Volumes 73-74 - Page 265 1841; and in popular culture for exam in Ballad of the Alamo 1:51–2:00 "Santa Anna ... roared./"I will show them no quarter, everyone will be put to the sword." (I use the song, not as a reliable source about the Alamo, but to show that these terms are not obscure academic ones but are also used together in popular culture and therefore widely understood). -- PBS ( talk) 13:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of the connection between the two terms, but "Put to the sword" is also used extensively as an idiom in contexts unrelated to military events, a football themed example from the telegraph - "Scotland put to the sword by Belgium". While the usage in that context is related to No Quarter in the sense that it's referring to showing no mercy it isn't 100% equivalent to the military usage. I think a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry which defines three usages of the phrase in conjunction with either a hatnote or see also section to related concepts would be more helpful to searchers, especially since the phrase isn't mentioned in the current target. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 19:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
        • @ 86.23.109.101 ] That is true for the term "no quater" as well eg BBC report "Michael Johnson (left) and David Nielsen show no quarter". If we were to do as you suggest then there are lots of terms that are used as idioms that would have to have their articles scrapped and be replaced with link to Wiktionary. The primary meaning of the term is "no quater" and the average reader is more than capable of understanding the difference between the true meaning a sporting idiom eg " it was murder out there" does not mean that the opposing teams were literally murdering each other. -- PBS ( talk) 07:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As far as I know ( PBS) "put to the sword" is not a phrase that means capital punishment; User:Mr. Guye do you have any examples? As to redirecting it to Wiktionary why when the term no quarter is covered by laws of war "it is especially forbidden ... to declare that no quarter will be given" and as the OED defines it that is precisely what the term put to the sword means (meaning 3 in the OED) -- which is not to execute but to use in the military to slaughter with the sword:
    • 3. [Sword]
      • a. transferred. The use of the sword in warfare, massacre, etc.; hence, slaughter; warfare; military force or power; also, the military profession or class, the army.
      • b. to put (†do) to the sword, to kill or slaughter with the sword.
  • I suggest that if anything is to be done to this redirect it is done by bringing reliable sources to the discussion. So far neither User:Mr. Guye or 86.23.109.101 have presented any evidence as to why this redirect is not correct. -- PBS ( talk) 11:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Googling and discovering that sometimes "put to the sword" and "no quarter" were used near each other can indicate that the author thought they were different things (else why be redundant?), and "no quarter" doesn't necessarily involve swords or even involve killing -- my reliable source is a dictionary. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Histoire

Delete. While "histoire" is French for "history" the primary meaning given by Wiktionary is "story" (cf WP:RFOREIGN). The incoming article-space links expect an article about a TV channel, the project-space links expect a journal (possibly [15]). Additionally I'm undecided whether it would be a plausible search term for L'Histoire (a magazine), although I would oppose redirecting it there as it is neither a journal nor a TV channel - it would definitely merit a disambiguation see also and maybe a hatnote though. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I've actually just found that we do have an article about the TV channel, at Histoire TV, which notes that the channels name was just "Histoire" from 1997-2019, this should be probably be retargeted there instead of being deleted (I found it on page 3 of search results). I can't find that we have an article on the journal, but as we do have articles about many other journals with this word in their title I'm not certain of that. If we do, I'm unsure whether disambiguation should be primary or by hatnote? Thryduulf ( talk) 02:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf's findings. Add one of those in title or look from searches, add See also to History. AngusW🐶🐶F ( barksniff) 23:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors appear to be split between retargeting and disambiguating.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Dominican passport

Ambiguous redirect. "Dominican" can mean either the Commonwealth of Dominica or the Dominican Republic. Additionally, there are many more people from the Dominican Republic than the State of Dominica. Persons from the Dominican Republic are called Dominicans as well, with the pronunciation different from that of people from the State of Dominica. This redirect has been maintained for 11 years, when the page was moved to prevent ambiguity with the Dominican Republic. Eye snore 14:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

P-I

This previously pointed to Seattle Post-Intelligencer, but was retargeted today by 67.70.27.246 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's always hard to search for terms that differ only in punctuation from a better-known term (in this case PI or P.I.), so I can't say for certain that "P-I" refers to the Post-Intelligencer the significant majority of the time, but there's nothing else at the DAB page where you'd expect to find a hyphen in the abbreviation. The only other entry with a hyphen in it is Provider-independent address space, but I don't think "P-I" is frequently used to refer to those. Special:PrefixIndex/P-I yields seven other results, all redirects, only one of which seems potentially shortenable to "P-I", namely P-I dyad; however, its target page, interval cycle, shows that "P/I dyad" is the preferred nomenclature. On this basis, I propose restoring the Post-Intelligencer as target. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 13:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Commnet "P-I" is one of the attributive forms for abbreviations PI or P.I.; so can be used with several of the topics listed at the disambiguation page. It's also an unusual alternate form of "P.I." abbreviations that I've encountered some times in the past. If it is restored to Post-Intelligencer, then a hatnote should be added leading back to the disambiguation page -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 20:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Astrophysicien

T WP:RLOTE, no connection between astrophysics and French. This is also a semi-incorrect translation, in that it means the career of being an Astrophysicist, rather than the area of study. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 13:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: Don't need random foreign language redirects, especially if they're grammatically incorrect Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Strahlung

WP:RLOTE, no specific connection between radiation and the German language. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. There's at least one case where the German word is used in English - Bremsstrahlung. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Don't need random foreign language redirects, doesn't seems to be an appropriate target for it on en.wiki. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Acustica

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

London Buses route W10

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

Physiker

WP:RLOTE. No specific connection between the career of being a physicist and the French/German languages. Mass created by a script. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Pragmatismo

WP:RLOTE. No connection between pragmatism and the italian language. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Russian Automobile Federation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Russian Automobile Federation

Glizzy

Redirect to hot dog. Glizzy is a regional dialectical synonym of hot dog, and people searching for it would not be expecting the rapper. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 18:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

it’s not currently mentioned at all at the proposed target so is there any evidence that people typing Glizzy would be more likely looking up hot dogs?-- 67.70.101.238 ( talk) 19:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I also noticed that at one point Glizzy was a dab page where it was also said to be a term for a Glock and that article doesn’t mention the term either. Basically, we need more evidence.-- 67.70.101.238 ( talk) 19:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The answer to that is simply. Yes. The terms are related and it's slang that originates in the Washington DC and Maryland area. A simple search brings up multiple references to the term on articles, and even youtube videos from area residents. Interestingly enough, it the term is also referenced on the Wiktionary glizzy as a hot dog reference, as well as a reference to the rapper, AND the gun. The term may in fact originate from said rapper or involve him in some way. 216.9.28.77 ( talk) 16:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
This is clearly on odd situation, in that we have three different meanings, but only one of them is actually mentioned in an article. Redirecting it to an article that does not use the term is not a good solution. Perhaps using WP:HATNOTEs on the article on the person is the correct answer? Something like maybe? Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The hatnote solution might look a little messy. Why not restore the DAB? BlackholeWA ( talk) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Please don't use a hatnote to direct a reader to an article where the term isn't mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
We do that all the time with informal nicknames like this. It's certainly preferable to a redirect that does the same. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote to wikt:glizzy. As a slang term it has multiple meanings, so we should not retarget it to just one of those meanings; nor is it suitable for a disambiguation page, since none of glock, hot dog, nor penis meet WP:DABMENTION. 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 05:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Anatov

This seems like a bit of a stretch of a misspelling, in addition to Anatov being a surname in its own right (although seemingly not the surname of anyone with a full article on Wikipedia). Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Anotov, but Delete Anatov - When I was in my teens (several decades ago), I actually pronounced it "Anotov", so it's not totally implausible. (I have a slight issue where I occasionally mix up letter order, or drop leters, in reading, writing or speech, and often tpying.) "Anatov" is less likely to be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilCat ( talkcontribs) 19:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment "Anatov" was used to mean "Antonov" in an article on Wikipedia, before I corrected it just now [16]. So it certainly could be a typo for Antonov. I have no opinion on deletion otherwise -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 21:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Muscle fiber

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#Muscle fiber

IT'SUGAR

I think this redirect should be deleted, as it's worse than having nothing. I can see an argument if Sharapova created the company, or something--but this just sends readers to the page of someone who partnered with the company, and is utterly unrelated to the company in a larger context such as the link from from ( American Dream Meadowlands) 98.243.132.66 ( talk) 05:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I've added an alternate capitalisation redirect to this nomination, since they should end up at the same place. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 13:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I feel that my input may be useful since I created this redirect. Maybe that is a rather weird article to redirect to... but where else would it go? I think it's notable enough to have some mention in Wikipedia, but I am unsure if it's notable enough to warrant its own article. If there are any actual policies that would support deleting or keeping, or if someone believes it should be its own article, please @ me so I can leave a better judgment/opinion on this. So far, this whole discussion (my input included) is all opinion, and opinion should not determine what is removed from Wikipedia. – Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@ 86.23.109.101: Hmmm... you've convinced me. I support a delete for both redirects. I won't do an author deletion nomination, however, as I would like to leave time for others in the community to add their thoughts. – Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: As above, the link to Sharapova is tenuous, as it isn't her company. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Cockmonger

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

April 7

Eductor-jet pump

It seems that these three (Eductor-jet pump, Eductors, Edutor) should probably go to the same place, but I don't know which place that is. I stumbled upon this situation while cleaning up Eduction. Note, too, that I redirected Educt to Eduction, in case anyone has other opinions about that one. Cnilep ( talk) 06:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear solution has been proposed yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment from proposer: Since no one has expressed an idea yet, let me ask this. Are there any objections to (re)targeting both 'Eductor' and 'Eductors' to the disambiguation 'Eduction', and leaving 'Eductor-jet pump' as the status quo (pointing to 'Injector')? Better suggestions are, of course, welcome. Cnilep ( talk) 23:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Fragilité

The current target of this redirect is inappropriate per WP:FORRED as there is no connection between the concept of brittleness and the French language. We do however have an article on a ballet with the same name Fragilité (ballet). I think this redirect should either be retargeted to point at the ballet, or maybe it should be deleted and the article moved to the non-disambiguated name? 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, then move the ballet to the base title since it will be unambiguous. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 16:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer if this was discussed at RM, but a WP:ROUNDROBIN swap between this redirect and Fragilité (ballet) looks to be the way to go. J947 messageedits 18:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both Fragilité (ballet) and Fragilité should be kept; although agree that a discussion as to whether the ballet doesn't need the disambiguator could be had (in which case the disambiguated form should still be kept as a redirect itself). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

SiO2 Group

I think this would probably be better as a redirect to Silicon dioxide, but I'm struggling to find many sources using this name, so I'm listing it here for discussion. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 15:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. I believe this redirect is referring to SiO2 as part of the mineral crystal structure, as in a silicate mineral, but only the quartz family (see Silicate_mineral#Tectosilicates) of minerals has the SiO2 stoichiometry. I would say retarget to that section, but if Quartz group or Quartz family aren't even redirects, I'm hesitant to pin this redirect on that. None of the other mineral-forming oxides have analogous redirects, so I think deletion here to avoid confusion might be best. Mdewman6 ( talk) 00:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I created this redirect 15 years ago, and I was notified that it was brought here. I have no strong opinion, and I am unsure of why I created this redirect, which might be related to why it ended up here. I think that the term refers to quartz, tridymite, opal and other such minerals that have a SiO2 composition, but that form different structures, as already surmised above. I think that Mdewman6, and others are better informed to make a decision on this. If similar things do not have articles of their own, and there is no benefit to an article, then I would lean towards delete. However, perhaps a dictionary definition should be created and then moved to Wiktionary. If that is done, then perhaps "Quartz group" and "Quartz family" should be redirected to the same definition. However, if group or family is a more common term than SiO2 group, then I think that it should get the name and then the others should redirect to it, with the other terms given as alternative names in the Wiktionary entry. After writing the preceding, I found that quartz group and family seem to refer to quartz gemstones rather than what was previously discussed. -- Kjkolb ( talk) 09:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus between deletion and retargeting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: There hasn't been any further discussion, but "group" could refer to the crystallographic space group (see list of space groups) for the various polymorphs of SiO2, listed at Silicon_dioxide#Crystalline_forms. If there is a desire to keep this redirect, targeting that section would seem best, though I still think deletion is probably better given the ambiguity of the term as discussed above. Furthermore, of course SiO2 already redirects to silicon dioxide, so this redirect would have limited utility, and is probably unhelpful if targeted to the lead of silicon dioxide rather than a specific section. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Soroka

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

Kinnies

Not mentioned at the target. An internet search suggests that this term is primarily used to denote affinity for fictional characters in fandom communities. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 17:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Kinnie" is a nickname for members of the otherkin community. BlackholeWA ( talk) 11:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment @ Yitzilitt: would you mind restoring the reference and a mention of kinnie? -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 21:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure what the proper protocol is for removing the deletion discussion link. Yitz ( talk) 21:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 72.187.142.113 ( talk · contribs) claimed it was misinforpation, but you supplied a reference, so the term "kinnie" could be supported without the other commentary, as a term used for self-ID. The practise of "kinning" though doesn't seem to be specific to "otherkin", as other topics can use the same term to mean similar things (treating others (non-relatives) as kin). So I'd suggest just adding that "kinnie" with the ref. That would solve this RFD problem. Though "Kinnies" is also the plural of "Kinnie", an alternate form of " Kenny", so perhaps pointing it to the disambiguation page would solve that issue Kinnie (disambiguation) -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 13:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Postmodern conservatism

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

Râbnița,

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

Main shock

This is some kind of terminology related to earthquakes, which isn't mentioned in the earth article, and the section it's supposed to be tatgeting doesn't exist. mainshock targets foreshock, should this be retargeted to match or is there a better target? 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for finding this, looking to fix it, and notifying me of the discussion. It looks like I changed this in 2018 so that it pointed to the same target as mainshock and I agree that that should still be the case. Regrettably, I seem to have used the wrong target at that time; I believe it was intended to be targeting Earthquake#Earthquake clusters. If there is no article specifically about mainshocks, that still seems like a reasonable target. Foreshock is also reasonable, but by that logic, I would think that aftershock would also be viable, so I prefer the general approach if no better targets are identified. — Ost ( talk) 19:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Globe (Earth)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 15#Globe (Earth)

Conspirationism

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

Rocketbook

Rocketbook is also a brand of reusable notebooks – probably not notable enough for its own article, but this redirect is still incorrect. Kokopelli7309 ( talk) 23:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep The fact that something else somewhere exists with the same name is not relevant, the dab is useful and has existed since 2007. We don't delete redirects on the premise that it may some day be notable, or never notable. It is perfectly reasonable that a reader would type in Rocketbook and expect to see Rocket eBook. VAXIDICAE💉 15:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I also think it's misleading. If there's no article about the reusable notebooks, why should we direct people who might have looked for them to an article about the early e-book that is not even produced now? Less Unless ( talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep If there's one use that is notable and another that isn't, it can be a redirect to the notable use. Peter James ( talk) 16:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep or Disambiguate: There may be an opportunity for someone to create articles on reusable notebooks, Rocketbook (company), or Rocketbook (notebook), but as they currently do not exist, the current target is reasonable; sources on Rocket eBook demonstrate that it is associated with the term Rocketbook. However, it may be worth disambiguating, with a {{ redirect}} hatnote or transforming into a dab page (if neither is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). If linked, I suggest mentioning Rocketbook at Société Bic#Products and targeting that section, as the reusable notebook company Rocketbook appears to have been an acquisition ( [17]). I believe the parent company to be a better target than either of the only current mentions, which are at Shark Tank (season 8) and perhaps Steve Emerson (visual effects artist)—if the Rocketbook, LLC mentioned on the back of the "Rocketbook Presents" DVDs ( [18]) is that same as the notebook company. — Ost ( talk) 22:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of canon law

Name too broad which links to an article explaining Roman Catholic philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of Roman Catholic canon law, not to a page where the philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of all canon laws are discussed (i.e. in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, the Early Church, etc.). There is no page which cover the subject this redirect is designating. Also, this redirect is unused in the main space. Therefore, I think this redirect should be deleted. Veverve ( talk) 19:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is an R from move of an article which stood at this title for almost five years until two months ago. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep {{ R from move}}, deletion will break links from outside Wikipedia for too little gain. Disambiguate once other articles that this title could refer to actually exist. — Kusma ( 𐍄· 𐌺) 12:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to canon law. Current target is too narrow, and deletion isn't viable, given the high likelihood of external linking. There's no real good place to point this, but we need to keep this around somewhere. Hog Farm Talk 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Cannibalistic tree

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

The Home of Football Stadium

Should this go to Dronfield (the geographic location) or Sheffield F.C., whose ground it is? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Sheffield F.C.: there's more info about the stadium at the club article Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The Official Website seems to be talking about a stadium yet to be built on land called "The Transport Ground" which is currently a sports and athletic club. This news article seems to be describing as not yet even having planning permission approved. They are currently describing the Coach & Horses Pub stadium under the Home of Football Stadium moniker (which is why it is diverted to Dronfield). However I am not sure why this actually even exists as a redirect. It seems unlikely anyone will actually search for "The home of football stadium" just to find Sheffield FC, and appears to be little more than an extension of this discussion and a means of wedging the stadium onto the DAB page in the first place. Koncorde ( talk) 01:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Redirect to Sheffield F.C.: It makes no sense to redirect to Dronfield#Sport and leisure as the proposed stadium is going to be in Sheffield, if it is ever built. See the link to the club's website above. If the new stadium is ever notable the it might be considered for an article. As of April 2021 the Home of Football Stadium does not exist.

2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:D55C:7D87:84DF:489D ( talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Tetartagonist

Absolutely no mention in the target article. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete As the person who changed it to a redirect noted, it isn't even a word. Even if someone wanted to denote the fourth most significant character in a story, as the original article stated, "tetart" isn't the prefix for it. It could have been deleted speedily as a hoax or a word coined by the contributor. Probability that somebody would search for that term × probability that somebody looking for it would spell it like that = virtually 0, and then the target article doesn't mention it anyway. Largoplazo ( talk) 02:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I try really hard not to write without checking my facts but I failed this time. "Tetarto-" is indeed the prefix for "fourth" that corresponds to "proto-" and "deutero-". Still, while I see some uses of it, essentially on fan sites and fan wikis where people are ranking characters in what, by the time we get to number 4, I suspect is their personal ordering. In any event, it isn't encyclopedic for purposes of determining whether it should have its own article (it's like having an article on Sixth associate producer), and the target article doesn't mention it so the redirect isn't helpful. So, still, delete. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Should have been speedied per A11, or failing that WP:PROD. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 04:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: notwithstanding its incorrect nature, this term isn't made up by the creator and as far as I can tell is the most used term for the fourth most significant character in a story. The redirect has received ample pageviews, most likely indicating that the term is searched up frequently. It's definitely a plausible search term, but I can't find a good target for this redirect. J947 messageedits 05:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    • So it looks like it is correct after all as the Greek ordinal prefix for 4. There's still some confusion; these aren't the tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta- cardinal Greek prefixes but rather the ordinal trit-, tetart-, pempt-, hect-, hebdom- prefixes. The correct terms for further -agonist s are pemptagonist, hectagonist, hebdomtagonist, ogdootagonist, etc. (or at least, I hope that they are). I doubt that it can be done, but add a mention to the tetartagonist if some sort of reliable source supports it. If no mention is there, I'm tempted to keep the redirect anyway as it directs readers to article content about the three major -agonist s. J947 messageedits 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if the term has no notability and little use outside of fan fiction, it seems that people are likely to look it up, and having it redirect to "protagonist" seems useful, since it'll take readers to the best article to explain what it means (it wouldn't hurt to mention the term there; it already mentions "deuteragonists" and "tritagonists"). I looked to see if there were "pentagonists", "hexagonists", "heptagonists", "octagonists", "nonagonists", or "decagonists", but a cursory glance at Google results suggests that these are mostly theoretical, and not actually used in this sense (although people have assumed them as social media handles), and people seem to confuse Greek and Latin prefixes, resulting in macaronic, but little-used terms like "quintagonist", "sextagonist", and "septagonist" ("tetragonist" doesn't immediately produce results, probably due to our redirects mirroring; the others would be the same in both Latin and Greek). Which is not to say that they shouldn't redirect to "protagonist"—they seem harmless and potentially useful. Maybe they could be footnoted there. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The word has been in use for 40+ years. [19]. Maybe retarget / slight merge to tritagonist is the best place for this information? If all we have is dicdef, transwiki'ing and soft redirecting to Wiktionary also seems better than straight deletion. — Kusma ( 𐍄· 𐌺) 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Liaqat Ali (cricketer, born 1987)

Player has played for 2 different cricketing sides. per WP:XY the current redirect could confuse readers as they may be looking for information on him playing for Abbottabad Falcons. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 16:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. I honestly don't understand the nominator's rationale: Player has played for 2 different cricketing sides, which seems to be irrelevant. This redirect was created as a result of this AfD, and is meant to aid readers who might search for this player, regardless of what cricket team he is currently on. Seems like a perfectly plausible search term in my book. Pinging Premeditated Chaos, who created this redirect for further input. CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Meh. I created the redirect since it seemed to be a plausible search term, but I don't care to learn enough about cricket to care either way. ♠ PMC(talk) 09:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep That's not what WP:XY is about (also the information could be added to the list). If redirects such as this were deleted, would there be a hatnote for a third cricketer with the same name but who only played for one side but not this one? Peter James ( talk) 16:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

South Scandinavian languages

Not mentioned at article. It is possible that at some point various dialects of Danish have been considered full-fledged languages (such debates are common, including among other Germanic languages), but there's nothing in the article about that, much less saying this was the term employed. I thought at first that this was probably a legitimate linguistics term being used too narrowly and that it should be its own article and include Danish and various now-extinct ancient and medieval southerly languages of the Scandinavian group. However, a search at Google Scholar produces zero hits for this term at all [20]. So I'm thinking it's probably an outright deletion candidate. I spot-checked for similar titles and didn't find any as actual pages ("Southern Scandinavian languages", "South Scandinavian language", "South Scandinavian", etc.).  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep and mention the term somewhere in the article. The term "South Scandinavian" is used in Glottolog [21]. The source given for this grouping is: Oscar Bandle (1973). Die Gliederung des Nordgermanischen. (Beiträge zur nordischen Philologie, 47.) Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn. I don't have access to that book, so I can not verify if "South Scandinavian" (or rather its German equivalent Südskandinavisch) is acutally mentioned there. Glottolog is notorious for terminological ideosycrasies, so someone needs to check it. Otherwise, I couldn't find the term in any source in Englisch. Südskandinavisch fares minimally better on Google Scholar: a handful of the 34 hits indeed refers to a linguistic subgroup. A Danish source however has been easy to find [22], although here, the context is mutual intellegibility, not genealogical subgrouping. – Austronesier ( talk) 17:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Danish language shows the family tree as North Germanic > South Scandinavian > Danish, which makes a redirect to Danish dialects a little odd or out of order. No actual mention of the term outside of the infobox. Unless something is added to one of the articles (and the redirect pointed appropriately), I'd be in favor of delete. Carter ( talk) 18:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
That, and the existence of Südskandinavisch in one source doesn't give us license to freely translate this to "South Scandinavian", nor equate this with a singular use of this term at the Glottolog list, and equate all that in turn with the Danish language. That's a big pile of WP:OR. The Danish sourced linked to, with sydskandinavisk appears to agree with our chart in the infobox, and suggests this is either a grouping once larger than Danish, or is a proto form that later became Danish, and either way it is not what the article Danish is about. So, this should be a redlink, either because it's a legit subject for an article, or it's an uncommon idea without enough real-world traction to merit an article.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment The reason I made the RD to 'Danish dialects' was that "South Scandinavian" refers to the group that Danish belongs to, and that group is mostly covered at 'Danish dialects'. This is because the South Scandinavian languages are mostly spoken in Denmark and are therefore generally considered to be Danish dialects. If we'd treated e.g. Jutlandic as a separate language and excluded it from the Danish dialects article, the confusion wouldn't arise. There are other Danish rd's that are messed up. It might be worthwhile creating a 'S. Scandinavian' stub with component languages Danish, East Danish and Jutlandic, if that wouldn't be a content fork with 'Danish dialects'. Or perhaps move 'Danish dialects' to 'S. Scandinavian' and add Scanian? — kwami ( talk) 03:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Some cleanup like that might result in a viable article, but we need to avoid confusing 1) a language group (even a small one) with 2) dialects within a language; these are essentially opposite topics, with standardized Danish in the middle of them. To the extent sources may conflict on how they want to define these things, we have to document that conflict (within WP:DUE) not silently pick a side in it. When it come to specific classification of something like Jutlandish, go with the predominant view in contemporary linguistics sources (i.e., if it's mostly treated as dialect of Danish, then focus on that, and only mention briefly that it is sometimes classified as a seprate South[ern] Scandinavian language. If it's mostly classified as the latter, then make that the main story, and only briefly touch on it sometimes being classified as a dialect of Danish. In short, treat this the way we treat all other intergrading continua that run from language group down to dialect.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep / Comment. I really don't see the need for a potential split with a tiny stub article - I think that would just be a fork of the same topic, per kwami's comments above. It doesn't appear to be a super-notable alternate term per nominator so I'm not sure the term deserves to be mentioned in the article, but even if this is Glottolog's weirdness, the standard for a redirect is very light - one source using the terminology may well qualify it as a valid redirect. SnowFire ( talk) 04:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've read the above a few times now and I feel like I get a different sense of the issue every time I read it. There seems to be some kind of nuance, assumptions, and/or confusion going on with the term. As such, we really ought to nail down what it can mean and describe it (either in its own article or a section of one) if we have the sourcing to do so. Until or unless this happens, the potential for confusion may continue so this is better off deleted. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Wet tar

Would these be better targeting Asphalt or Tar? although this is used as a road sign after Asphalt concrete has been laid it's referring to the asphalt component of the mix. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 13:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think it's fine as it is: the article has sufficient explanation. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 20:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I may be underestimating its value as a term someone would search for (it seems to be more in use in Australia than other places), but I don't see any links actually using this phrase. If it's kept, it should stay pointing to asphalt concrete or maybe redirect to sealcoat. Looking at how it's used, it seems to be more about sealcoats, chipseals, and/or tackcoats than about asphalt concrete, but pointing to just asphalt would be going too far back up the production chain and tar is the wrong product. Carter ( talk) 07:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Tar. The term is also used for roofing so we have go broader (and more literal) than roads. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

KO temporary

Unused redirect that was used only in 2008 for a mainspace draft. Ibadibam ( talk) 20:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep in some form for attribution reasons. See this. Compare to this. Deletion without trace is out of the question. I've thought over the keep in some form bit and decided that keeping the redirect in its current form is not harmful, but if people decide that it is, then another option is to move the redirect without leaving a redirect to User:J947/KO attribution and leave a note on Talk:Kemetic Orthodoxy. J947 messageedits 01:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to a talk page archive, something like Talk:Kemetic Orthodoxy/KO temporary. needs to be kept for attribution reasons as it includes the revision history for large parts of the article, but I agree that it doesn't make sense as a mainspace redirect. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Or move it to Kemetic Orthodoxy, either would work well in my opinion. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 14:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Move without redirect to Kemetic Orthodox religion so the edit history is housed somewhere useful instead of dumped or hidden away somewhere obscure. This term in used synonymically multiple times in the article and I noticed there is not yet a redirect in place. I'm not a fan of keeping as-is, mainspace is out of scope for temporary workpages. -- Tavix ( talk) 02:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is support to move this redirect, but the target is not yet clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

March 31

Aggregate concrete

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

1234567890

While this is described at the target, I'm pretty sure thet Arabic numerals is the primary topic. A hatnote might be added there, but I don't think it's necessary. This redirect gets well over a hundred monthly pageviews and might be confusing for many people. Note that 0123456789 also redirects to the proposed target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is already consensus for retargeting, there is still some slight disagreement with regards to the primary topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to pandigital number, the correct place if we talk about this as a number, instead of as a string of symbols, and clean up the hatnotes there. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Numeral system. Paul 012 brings up some points that I mostly agree with. 🐔  Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate There doesn't appear to be a clear primary topic to me, and there are three valid targets suggested above. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Arabic numerals. I think someone searching this is intending to type out the set of Arabic numerals (either out of boredom or curiosity) instead of meaning this to be the number 1,234,567,890. Of course, where ever this ends up, please add or clean-up the hatnotes to the other valid targets. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Arabic numerals, in line with 0123456789, and point 123456789 there as well. It's a better target than Numeral system, which is much more broad. I mostly agree with Tavix, but really, it's hard to do more than guess what readers likely mean. Pandigital number is too specific to strike me as the primary topic. —  The Earwig ( talk) 08:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Depending on which retarget option is the most popular, we could end up with 0123456789, 123456789, and 1234567890 going to 2-3 different targets. There seems to be a consensus against deletion and for retargeting, but we can do with more opinions on where to take the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per 86 above. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've reverted an earlier close. Because of the variety of opinions and the relevance for other redirects, this discussion could do with more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Arabic numerals. I think this because it points out the Arabic numerals and 0123456789 goes there as well. It is also a more specific one than Numeral system. Keresluna ( talk) 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per 86 IP and Mdewman6, where the three valid targets can be added as to avoid any sort of confusion. CycloneYoris talk! 23:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Arabic numerals. Numeral system seems too broad, and Pandigital number seems like an unlikely intended target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Roman equivalent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Roman equivalent

Cylindricity

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

Cockmonger

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Cockmonger

Glizzy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Glizzy

A (internet meme)

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

Current Fractions

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

Arnold Hall (Hartwick College)

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

Fine Arts Theatre

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

Paolino Recreation Center

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

OpenStore

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

Kinnies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Kinnies

Free Willie (Due South)

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

Fee willy

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

Bum bum be-dum

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

Stephen French (troll)

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

(East Lancs) British Citybus

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

Geodreieck

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

Incompetent valves

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Incompetent valves

Put to the sword

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Put to the sword

Podarke (polychaete)

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

Sub Zero (roller coaster)

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

Eductor-jet pump

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Eductor-jet pump

March 30

White(people)

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

Heavy (magazine)

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

3.1415926535897932384626433832795

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

Political opening

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

Muscle fiber

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Muscle fiber

Wikipedia:Rahat Ali Warsi

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

Anatov

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Anatov

Abrogationism

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

Correctionism

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

Imprecationism

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

Conceptionism

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

Transfigurationism

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

Let Me Reintroduce Myself (EP)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted under G5

Conspirationism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Conspirationism

Kohlenstoff

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

Occupationism

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

Disputationism

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

Coagulationism

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

Objectionism

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

Coll