Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Administrator instructions

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion [ edit ]

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

The guiding principles of RfD [ edit ]

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

When should we delete a redirect? [ edit ]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting [ edit ]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion 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 [ edit ]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  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 [ edit ]

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. 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 [ edit ]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion [ edit ]

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.
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|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.
Notify users.

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

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

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

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

Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

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

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

Current list [ edit ]

March 4 [ edit ]

Dry -hole clause [ edit ]

Delete. This badly-formatted title is not a likely search term, and was clearly an error when created, notwithstanding that the article was at this title for some time. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Damocles (video game [ edit ]

Missing close parenthesis. Unlikely to aid in searches. There are no incoming internal links. The redirect has existed for seven years so I am starting a discussion here. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 07:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Likely created in error. CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete this search bar clutter per nom. Why do we need this when in most cases the correctly formatted version will appear? Regards, SONIC678 08:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete this error in disambiguation (WP:COSTLY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

1234567890 [ edit ]

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)

Template:Government Officials and Priesthood from the time of of Ramesses II Navigator [ edit ]

These are leftovers from moves because of "of of" in the titles, possibly part of why they didn't seem to get very many pageviews since July 2015. Not sure if we should keep these lying around, so delete unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 01:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: Agree, not worth keeping either of these, nor likely to have relevant external links. --Sprachraum (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: These are template redirects from moves, so deleting them might break old versions of pages calling them. That said, they remained at these titles for five and one weeks respectively, so likelihood of damage is quite minimal. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. "of of" is clearly a plausible typo, how else would they have been created? Redirects are cheap - why delete them if they are unambiguous? ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both. 'of of' gets zero views, not particularly plausible or likely. Avilich (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per WereSpielChequers. It's useless to nominate these kinds of redirects to RfD. J947messageedits 03:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Even Though We Used to Be Together [ edit ]

I cannot make a connection between this article title and any FHFIF episode title, song title, character name, or otherwise. If there is a connection, I cannot find it. I am nominating this redirect for deletion on the grounds that I cannot see why it links to this series page. — Paper Luigi TC 03:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about this topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

March 3 [ edit ]

Bone Apple Tea [ edit ]

Procedural listing. User:DeliciousInternetSpeeds created the redirect in December 2020 with the edit summary, "Created redirect from semi-common example of an eggcorn". User:Mrmariomaster commented at Talk:Eggcorn, "Bone Apple Tea should not be redirected here, as the faulty phrases don't have the same meaning. Instead it should be redirected to Malapropism." I will note that bone apple tea is not currently mentioned at Eggcorn. Cnilep (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Change target to malapropism - bone apple tea (bon appetit) isn't an eggcorn as Mrmariomaster pointed out. – The Grid (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the late addition, but I just found that 'Bone Apple Teeth' also redirects to 'Eggcorn'. Cnilep (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
grrr... and also 'Bone App the Teeth' Cnilep (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Junction (Dune) [ edit ]

These fictional locations are not mentioned in the target and there is nothing in the article to indicate the target is the correct one. Is there a better target? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Buzzell (Dune) should redirect to Sandworms of Dune and be unlinked in that article, and Junction (Dune) should redirect to Spacing Guild. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 22:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Standards-based education reform [ edit ]

The United States is not the only country that has adopted this kind of reform, as detailed at Outcome-based education. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Portal:Assam [ edit ]

Cross-space redirect from portal to main article space, seems highly unlikely Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete not useful to potentially imply the existence of a portal. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete not a helpful redirect - readers looking for a portal will most likely not be helped by being redirected to the article, and readers looking for an article are extremely unlikely to be searching in portal space. As above this may also cause issues relating to implying the existence of a non-existent portal (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete yes I removed the speedy, but there's lots of things that are obvious deletes without being speediable, besides which bringing these here as they are made is relatively painless. Anyway, I could see a possible use case for this kind of XNR where portal is in the title of the target and they may even be required in certain {{R restricted}} situations as with Portal:No Escape, but I don't see how this or indeed most other XNRs of this form will be helpful for reader navigation, and they could potentially be harmful, see WP:PANDORA. (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

State farm [ edit ]

I propose changing the primary topic for state farm to State Farm. Having it redirect to Sovkhoz just seems bizarre to me. As a criteria, Sovkhoz received 2,255 pageviews (30 days) and the insurance company received 16,580 pageviews (30 days). I propose changing the redirect to AntoineHound (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: couldn't we make this a disambiguation page? E.g. State farm may refer to: State Farm or Sovkhoz? WhoAteMyButter (📨📝) 05:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    I cannot see who has made this comment but there is already a disambiguation page that lists many different state farm variants. AntoineHound (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    WhoAteMyButter, please remember to sign.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 06:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. Anyone putting "State farm" in the search box is almost certainly looking for the insurance company. "State farms" or "State-owned farm" should go to Sovkhoz. I'm also not a huge fan of distinguishing topics by capitalization unless absolutely necessary.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 06:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. It's quite rare that different capitalisations of the same word should target different articles, and the insurance company is the clear primary topic here. (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to State Farm. If the reader is not looking for the insurance company, the State Farm article has a friendly hatnote at the top to help them find what they are looking for. The insurance company is definitely the primary topic. ―NK1406 talkcontribs 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Move State farm (disambiguation) to this title. Seems like the most logical thing to do here, given that the current target isn't the primary topic and we already have a dab page for this redirect. Hog FarmTalk 22:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • MoveState farm (disambiguation) to State farm per Hog Farm. Probably better for WP:RM, but I think we can reach consensus here given that the issue is disambiguation. I think there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the lower case form (see WP:DIFFCAPS), so a disambiguation page seems appropriate under this title. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: It's pretty clear that the status quo has fallen out of favor, but there's as yet no consensus between retargeting State farm or moving State farm (disambiguation)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • MoveState farm (disambiguation) to State farm clearly no primary topic. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've allready voted above, but since there are now two outcomes being discussed I thought I'd expand my reasoning for retargeting a bit more. First of all looking at the page views of the articles on the dab page in the last 30 days:
Insurance company
There's also their research centre, and 8 arenas/sports events for which they own the naming rights listed on the DAB page
State owned farms
Over the same period this redirect got 300 page views and DAB page got 109. Looking at the page views it appears to me that the insurance company is the primary topic here, geting 5 times the page views of Prison farm and 6 times the page views of Sovkhoz. When I do a google search for "state farm" every single result in the first 5 pages is related to the insurance company or the stadiums they sponsor. I therefore think this should target State Farm, which should be hatnoted to the DAB page. (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Well said, I concur with this assessment. AntoineHound (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency [ edit ]

Similar to a recent RfD discussion, the section targeted by this redirect was removed and the content is no longer found in the article. The information indicated by this redirect is currently divided between List of presidents of the United States by other offices held and Elections lost by presidents of the United States, and both articles involve cases both before and after service as president. I recommend deletion unless the originally targeted section is restored or made to exist elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Restore article to this revision. Either that or add the information to some other article. Drdpw redirected the article in 2016 with the edit summary Redirecting page to a section of the List of Presidents of the United States article that contains this information; care was taken to ensure that no information was lost during the process. What was left of the information was removed by Ivar the Boneful, pointing in his edit summary to an article that as far as I can tell has never existed. J947messageedits 02:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a typo for List of presidents of the United States by other offices held. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Dry Hole [ edit ]

Dry Hole was previously a disambiguation page with 2 entries: Dry Hole, Kentucky (now deleted - expired PROD) and Dry-hole clause. I suggest delete because at this capitalisation there's no reason it should redirect to Dry-hole clause. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Re-dabify (draft dab page available below the redirect) and move to Dry hole per WP:DABNAME. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Well done for finding David Harold Byrd: actually that article would make a good target. Unfortunately the other 2 entries at the draft dab aren't mentioned in their targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Both are common meanings that it's trivial to verify in a basic search online. – Uanfala (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Dichronic [ edit ]

Although categorised as {{R from drug trade name}}, it is not mentioned at the target, and "dichronic" is more likely to be a misspelling of "dichroic" or "diachronic" (see The dictionary definition of dichronic at Wiktionary), and is therefore ambiguous and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Rannut [ edit ]

Not mentioned as an alternative spelling at the target. A Google Scholar search suggests that this is much more common as a surname than as an alternative name for an Egyptian god. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to identify a serpent goddess Rannut, who appears very frequently and as an important goddess in an old (?) book Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World (1907) by Gerald Massey, with a goddess presented in contemporary references, especially including The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (2003, reprinted 2018) by Richard H. Wilkinson. In Wilkinson's book, a list of serpent deities presented (pp. 220-228) is: Apophis, Mehen, Merestseger, Renenutet, Wadjet, Wepset, Weret-Hekau, and Yam.

And Goddesses in World Mythology (1993) by Martha Ann, Dorothy Myers reads: (bold by me)

page 91

Rannut See Renenet, Renenutet.

page 91

Agriculture; Mother and Guardian; Hunting and Wild Animals; Heaven and Hell
Lion goddess of the harvest and divine nurse who suckled the pharaohs. She nourishes newborns and sometimes determines their fortune. She also suckles the souls of the dead and is called the earth itself. Renenet is also said to be a name for Isis and identified with Shait. See also Rannu, Renen, Renenutet. Alternate forms: Ramuit, Ranen, Raninit, Ranno, Rannut, Ranuit, Renenit, Renen-utet, Rennute, Renuntet, Renute, Thermuthis. [Baumgartner 1984; Budge 1989; Cooper 1876; Durdin-Robertson 1975; Leach 1972; Leach 1992; Stone 1979]

page 92

Agriculture; Mother and Guardian; Reptiles
Serpent goddess of the harvest and wine. Daughter of Saosis. She wears the horns and solar disk of Hathorand is a goddess of nursing. Some say she is also lion-headed. See also Ernutet, Renenet. Alternate forms: Rannu, Rannut, Remute, Renen-utet. [Leach 1972; Leach 1992]

Hence I redirected Rannut to Renenutet. 배우는사람 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Vladimir Khrushchev [ edit ]

None of these are alternative names for their targets, delete unless a justification can be provided. N.b. that I let Vladimir Andropov stand, as Vladimir Andropov was Yuri Andropov's father's name and there is some content about him at the article (not to mention that a non-Russian speaker may misidentify "Vladimirovich" as "Vladimir"). signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete G3 as vandalism. Not real names for the subjects of the articles. (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G3: Blatant hoax. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Parañá-Paraíba interior forests [ edit ]

Author requests deletion of redirect (criteria G7); I created this article under an implausibly misspelled name in 2006, and immediately moved it to the correctly-spelled name. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Sugden (2012 character) [ edit ]

Proposing this redirect be deleted, since there is no 2012 character under the name of Sarah Sugden – she was introduced to Emmerdale in 2005. – DarkGlow (contribstalk) 15:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thalapathy 67 [ edit ]

No evidence of existence Kailash29792(talk) 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Information services [ edit ]

I think that this needs to be a DAB page, as it apparently has different meanings in different countries. Still to research further, but as far as I know, in Commonwealth countries it is used in connection with library services, rather than a commercial broker. Needs investigation and discussion, at least. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Later comment. I'll need to come back to this later (no time now), but I just want to add that I have since discovered the DAB page Information Services. IMO this one should probably be moved to the lower case title, and its options expanded, once I have added some more to relevant pages (relating to libraries, IT departments and probably a few others). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
And another redirect page to Information broker, Information service. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Zz [ edit ]

Unused template shortcut, not particularly clear in what it refers to. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • The name of the template will become clearer if it's compared to Template:Aa, which redirects to Template:RM top. It's a clever pair of template redirects, but you'd expect they would work in a wider range of contexts than the niche discussion venue of RMs. However, we don't know if the redirect is used – before the March 2020 merge of its previous target into {{Archive bottom}}, it was used by substing rather than transcluding, and it appears such usage may have continued. – Uanfala (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Perhaps retargeting to {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} would make more sense? The rfd should make substitutions break so anyone using this shortcut should know to come here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The rfd tag doesn't display on transclusions or substitutions, so people attempting to use it won't notice. Frankly, I'd be surprised if this pair of redirects is used by anyone other than their creator (from whom we haven't heard yet), but we can't know for sure. – Uanfala (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning Delete on these, unless someone comes up with a justification to keep them. Highly ambiguous names that aren't really connected to the target template. Although the idea clearly was first and last letters of the alphabet I can't help but feel that these shorthand redirects could be put to better use. WP:ZZ targets WP:Wikibreak and WP:AA is a DAB page, maybe they would have some associated templates that might be better targets? (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:ZipsCoach [ edit ]

Unused redirect in template-space from a 2008 move - this title for the template should not be used, as it's not immediately clear in what it refers to, and not in line with other template names - and therefore the redirect deleted. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Медаль Жукова [ edit ]

No reason to have foreign language redirects in template-space; unused. There's a few dozen of these I'll nominate it if looks like there's consensus to delete this. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • This is the name of corresponding template on the Russian Wikipedia. This sort of redirects, which include for example {{Citar livro}} and {{Coloré}}, are occasionally created to assist editors when translating pages from other Wikipedias. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the name of the medal in it's native language, so there's enough connection between the template and the Russian language to justify a Russian language redirect, per WP:RFOREIGN, in my opinion. (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Transcanadian [ edit ]

Nominate for deletion, the word "Transcanadian" doesn't appear in the target article and a Google search doesn't show any real link between the two. (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Transcanadian" has 2 other uses in enwiki as an adjective not connected to railways, and deletion to facilitate uninhibited Search gives better results. I note that "Transcanadian" is not mentioned at the current target or at Via Rail (as one might expect from the See also entry for "Transcanadian" at TransCanada). I note as well that Transcanadian train and Trans-Canadian train also redirect to the current target, which is OK. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the DAB page at TransCanada, and expand to cover usage of "TransCanadian". I think "transcanada" and "transcanadian" are ambiguous enough with each other that people searching for one could be looking for results from the other. (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Aintcha [ edit ]

This is a case of WP:SURPRISE; both internet and Google Scholar results suggest that this is primarily a synonym for "ain't your" or "aren't you". I think that deletion is the appropriate course of action here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The results I see are a mix of "ain't your", "aren't you" and "perineum" so it's not inappropriate, even if not the best, especially as we don't have (and almost certainly shouldn't have) articles for the other two uses. Maybe a soft redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY (and certainly not a dictionary of slang). --Un assiolo (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Neither the redirect nor it's target are a dictionary entry, so that rationale isn't relevant. We commonly redirect alternative names, including slang names, to pages where they are mentioned and/or soft redirect them to Wiktionary if there is an entry there but not here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is very much a surprise: those using Wikipedia while eating their breakfast should avoid clicking on the target. I don't think the whimsical reference from a work of fiction is enough to justify a redirect to this target. As Thryduulf says, there are other uses but there's no real data to show whether or not people are searching Enwiki for it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessarily astonishing. The word refers to other things, and it doesn't seem likely to me that many readers wanting to know about Perineum would use this as a search term (though I could be wrong). While redirects from vernacular or slang terms are not uncommon, I can't imagine anyone searching for this particular term unless they were looking for its meaning, and indeed there is nothing much at Perineum about aintcha beyond a short definition, so the spirit if not the letter of NOTDICT does seem relevant. Cnilep (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Lingerie company [ edit ]

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

March 2 [ edit ]

Governor hotel [ edit ]

This redirect should be deleted as there is already a more geographically-specific redirect linking to the target article as well as a disambiguation page, Governor Hotel under that name with proper capitalization. Publichall (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Royal Scotsman [ edit ]

I believe this should be converted to a disambiguation page, as in this edit (which was rapidly reverted). I believe the term has no primary topic, as it could refer either to the HMS Royal Scotsman (a ship of the British Royal Navy that served during World War II and later became the headquarters of the Church of Scientology, the flagship of the Sea Org and the personal residence of L. Ron Hubbard) or the tourism train known as the Belmond Royal Scotsman (the subject of an RM discussion that was just closed). Recent page views show no major preference (e.g., in November 2020 the ship article was viewed more). — BarrelProof (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment should Royal Scotman be bundled into this nomination? (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't really care what happens to the redirect (I don't even remember creating it) but a two-link dab page is ridiculous. Decide which one you want to target it at and link to the other in a hat note. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:TWODABS is a guideline after all. J947messageedits 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's a guideline, and it does not say that a two-link dab page is ridiculous. It says "if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name." It does not say to just pick one subject as primary whenever there are two to choose from. It says exactly the opposite. It has a section called WP:NOPRIMARY, and in that section is an explicit example of an appropriate two-link dab page, John Quested. Per his page view data, John Quested the producer is more popular than John Quested the RAF officer. Should we just delete that dab page that is given as an example in the guidelines and move John Quested (producer) to John Quested? — BarrelProof (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I was just pointing the guideline out to HJ Mitchell. Apologies if I implied that it said that two-entry dab pages weren't allowed; that isn't what I meant at all. J947messageedits 01:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
          • You should be aware, @BarrelProof:, that there are many editors including me and, it seems, HJM, that do consider 2-dabs pages to be ridiculous, because "Decide which one you want to target it at and link to the other in a hat note" actually gets more readers to where they wanted to be in fewer clicks. But that's another story, not for here... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
            • As you said, this is probably not the best place to discuss whether to change the guideline. However, my personal impression is that a lot of readers don't really understand the Wikipedia concept of hatnotes, and may not be able to quickly figure out what to do when they land on an article that is about a different topic than what they were looking for. When someone lands on a dab page, there are two advantages: 1) they will often learn something interesting about other topics that they didn't know before, and 2) it will be very clear what to do – you read the choices and click on the one you want. When a dab page has very few entries, that process will be fast. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Oh. Incidentally, HJ Mitchell is a 10-year admin, a sysop, an oversighter, an edit filter manager, and #771 among the most active Wikipedians of all time. I'm sure he's aware of the guideline. Hats off to all that service to Wikipedia. I'm not sure why I even bother responding with a different opinion, since I'm sure I'm much less well informed. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current disambiguation using a hatnote is sufficient. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Could I Love With No Fear [ edit ]

Not mentioned at the target, or anywhere else on Wikipedia including Music – Songs from and Inspired by the Motion Picture. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: The song is featured in the musical, on the original motion picture soundtrack, which is yet to be released. When it is eventually released, I will change the redirect to the soundtrack's page which I have ready to go in my sandbox. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

10 Years (Daði Freyr song) [ edit ]

Confusing redirect, this could better be a red link The Banner talk 10:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Banner: This is not where the article pointed originally. You can quite clearly see I pointed it to Daði Freyr. User:TheThomanski pointed the article to 10 Years (song), which was then redirected for, in another editor's eyes, "failing notabilty". Two editors, including myself, disagree, so I have reverted that editor's redirect of the article and repointed this there. Surely now this nomination serves no purpose and should be speedily closed. Ss112 10:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
As long as you guys are editwarring about reinstating the original article (what I only noticed a few minutes ago), this RfD is useful. The Banner talk 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@The Banner: "You guys are editwarring"? I reverted somebody once, and that's my only contribution to any sort of notability dispute here, so I'm not in an edit war. Besides, even if the original article were redirected (after it goes through AfD, if it does), this would still be a valid redirect to Daði Freyr. I see no valid reason to delete it if it were pointed at the correct article by an editor and not a bot, which is what happened here. Ss112 16:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I see here two removals and two restores. Start a proper discussion is far better idea. The Banner talk 17:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@The Banner: I never denied it was an edit war between others. I know it is. I'm saying I'm not involved in it, because my only contribution was a revert to a) restore the article, and b) inform the editors involved to stop the back-and-forth and to take it to AfD, which is the correct venue for this after a BOLD redirect of an article is reverted. Ss112 22:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 10 Years (song). (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    Why does the song have an article? Lack of significant coverage aside, it's not even out yet and we know nothing aside from artist, title, and future release date. IceWelder [] 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    If you think the song is not notable enough for an article then take it to AfD, RfD doesn't evaluate articles. As it stands that article is a clear and unambiguous target for this redirect and so it should point there. If the article is kept then it's pointing to the right place, if it's deleted the redirect will be G8'd or retargeted to either Daði Freyr or Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest. There's literally no point targeting it anywhere else while an article on the song exists. (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already been retargeted to 10 Years (song). Take any concerns about that article's notability to AfD, as it's already been redirected twice and we don't need anybody else trying to turn it into a redirect. Ss112 16:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I reverted this retarget: please don't retarget a redirect that is under active discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Shhhnotsoloud: Is this written in a guideline or policy? If it is, please cite what guideline it's from. If it's not, you shouldn't have reverted. Thank you. Ss112 13:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • @Ss112: It is clearly bad practice to attempt to subvert or anticipate the result of an RfD by prematurely changing the target. For one thing, it makes your "keep" a very confusing statement, since you mean keep it targeted at a different target than that stated in the nomination. This is Redirects for discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
          • @Shhhnotsoloud: So it's not written in a guideline and you just think it's "best practice" to police every redirect listed at RfD each day as you see fit? Gotcha. I saw the redirect was only targeted to 10 years by a bot to avoid a double redirect after the article it was pointed to had been redirected, so I was restoring that target as it had only been changed and nominated because there was no longer the correct article to point it to. Finally no, my keep vote was based on the fact that I had already re-repointed it to 10 Years (song). Keep also means "I don't want it deleted". Surely someone who frequents RfD knows this. Ss112 23:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 10 Years (song), notwithstanding potential lack of notability. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Digital Homicide Studios LLC. [ edit ]

Unlikely typo with the lone period at the end. IceWelder [] 08:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think "LLC." with a lone period is a fairly common styling due to (perhaps erroneous) cross-formatting from the likes of Inc. and Corp. BlackholeWA (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Agathidium cheneyi [ edit ]

Deserves its own page, especially since no other Agathidium species redirect to the genus page.Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I've fixed the template above and tagged the redirect. (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Either Restore the stub article in the page history, or Delete to encourage article creation per WP:Redlink. All species are assumed inherently notable enough for a stand alone article per WP:NSPECIES so this should not be a redirect. (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

March 1 [ edit ]

Witch Lesbians [ edit ]

Doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment The related redirect Gay witchcraft targets Modern Pagan views on LGBT people. (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify - I'm not endorsing retargeting there, just mentioning a related redirect. I'm not sure what to do with this redirect at the moment. (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget Motherland Fort Salem can't be the only mention of witch lesbians in media; it doesn't make sense to redirect there. I'm not sure if the page needs to exist at all? But if it does then should redirect to "Modern Pagan views on LGBT people" as stated above me. Apathyash (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WebView [ edit ]

Procedural nomination; redirect was blanked by LMB with the following reason:

WebView is NOT Microsoft Edge! Perhaps Edge is based on WebView, but it's a way more general technology than Edge.

JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

My basis for the redirect:
I agree that there is not much information regarding WebView in the Microsoft Edge article (yet). Any better ideas where else to redirect instead? You may also want to start an article on WebView. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Colors [ edit ]

I'm pretty sure that these ought to go to the same place. Which is better? I've looked at a number of other pairs of colo(u)r page titles (multicolor, colourful, etc.), and every pair goes to the same place, except for colored and coloured, which are distinct articles covering different topics. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It from bit [ edit ]

Article just got overhauled to remove synthesis of unrelated ideas, and this theory is no longer discussed in detail anywhere on Wikipedia. It is mentioned only in passing even on proposer John Archibald Wheeler's article. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Cityfight [ edit ]

This is a bit of a mess of redirects in my opinion, with slight variations in capitalisation and punctuation sending readers to three very different articles. The warhammer 40K redirect is a partial title match for a codex (rule book) that was released as part of the Cities of Death expansion pack, the other two are self explanatory. My gut feeling with this is to retarget all of these to Cityfight: Modern Combat in the Urban Environment and hatnote to the article on Urban warfare, but I could also see the argument for disambiguation. There's also the related City fighting redirect, Which I won't nominate here to avoid a trainwreck. (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhino (Warhammer 40,000) [ edit ]

Yet more broken 40K Vehicle redirects, again these are supposed to be pointing at a section of Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, which was deleted in 2011. I can find no coverage of this tank anywhere in the encyclopaedia. If kept this would probably be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), but they're not covered there either, just given a name drop as an example of a transport vehicle. (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Razorback (Warhammer 40,000) [ edit ]

Another broken warhammer vehicle redirect. This is supposed to be a section redirect to Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, but that article was deleted in 2011. I can't find any coverage of this vehicle anywhere in the encyclopedia. If kept this would probably be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000) as the army that uses the vehicle, but it's not covered there either (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Space Marine Predator [ edit ]

These are three redirects for variants of a space marine tank which is not discussed in the target article. These used to be section redirects to Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000 which was redirected to the main warhammer 40,000 article (With a bot "Fixing" the resulting double redirects by retargeting them), before being restored and nominated for an AfD discussion, which ended with the article being deleted. These broken section redirects were left behind from the bot retargeting them to the main article, and should probably have been G8'd when the main article was deleted. If kept these would be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), but there's no content on these tanks there, just a name drop as an example of a tank the space marines use (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Greatest Team of the Greatest Club [ edit ]

Delete - completely implausible for a typo, not to mention unbiased in favour of the club. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete way too ambiguous to target this specific club. While the club did make a list if their greatest players this idea is not unique to this club and a huge number of sports teams have made similar lists. A google search has basically every result relate to a different team. (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Refine to Port Adelaide Football Club#Greatest Team if that section gets referenced. It's an ambiguous term, but in the context of Wikipedia the term isn't ambiguous. I'm wary refining the redirect to an unreferenced section per WP:V and as readers would likely be looking for further information through references, so in that scenario probably restore article and send to AfD this revision (there's some news coverage of the topic). At any stretch, don't delete as it isn't in RfD's remit to remove article content from public view. J947messageedits 22:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Refine and Rename - I decided to do a bit of digging based on J947's comment about references, and have found a link between this redirect (more specifically, its edit history) and a now defunct page on Port Adelaide site listing this team. However, despite the official title being the redirect title, it would be worth renaming the redirect to Port Adelaide's Greatest Team (which is alot more common than the variant used by the redirect). I retract my earlier delete nomination, as renaming the redirect and refining to the section suggested by J947 would be ideal. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are other good reasons for redirects besides typos, and "completely implausible for a typo" doesn't apply to alternate names. All that matters is whether this is a plausible alternate name. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Leman Russ [ edit ]

This is a higly ambiguous redirect because there are two things in the warhammer 40,000 universe called leman russ, neither of which is discussed at the target article - a charcter and a tank. The character used to have an entry at Primarch, which was deleted following an AfD nomination, but is still mentioned in The Horus Heresy. There's also an argument to be made that this should target Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), as the character acts as the leader of a space marine army. The vehicle used to be discussed in Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 which was deleted following an AfD nomination, but still has a mention in Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000). The article content in the page history was transwikied in 2007, following which the article was turned into a redirect. Since there are 3 possible targets for this I propose deletion to allow uninhibited search results. (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nipple H [ edit ]

The only edit the creator ever made was to create this redirect. The edit summary from 2008 signals that they knew it would come under scrutiny because they denied vandalizing the encyclopedia in it. It's just too bad it took over 13 years to bring it here. They say it's a fan nickname and I don't know if that's true, but if it is then too obscure and defamatory to be useful to us. LM2000 (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete G10 / G3 The only mention I can find of this "Nickname" is an entry on urban dictionary, which leads me to believe that this is either something the redirect creator made up or is pure vandalism. Given the lack of mention of this name in the article and the complete lack of reliable sources covering this it should be deleted due to BLP concerns. (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pejorative redirects like this are harmful unless they are actually in wide use, which this one does not seem to be. In any case, there's no discussion of "Nipple H" in the target article. The only other usage I can find for this is a parts description for one sort of valve fitting, which also is not covered in the encyclopedia. (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete despite what the creator claimed it’s not a common nickname. I’m not sure if a speedy deletion works here it’s over a decade old so nowhere near recent enough for G3 and I’m doubt it qualifies as an attack.-- (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete slowly. If you can't find anything with Google searches for a pop-culture topic, it's not currently a common nickname and thus not useful. But given the ephemeral nature of pop-culture topics, especially on the Internet, you can't assume that something obscure in 2021 was obscure (or an attack) in 2008. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The Scabs (Amercican band) [ edit ]

Implausible typo, and not linked from elsewhere Ionmars10 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep; the decent amount of pageviews shows that the redirect is linked from somewhere (outside Wikipedia). Ionmars10, please don't move redirects per [[1]]. J947messageedits 03:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The band is mentioned several times in his article. Seems like a sensible redirect.LM2000 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The redirect contains a typo; it can be hard to notice and the fact that you didn't notice it adds to the plausibility of the typo. J947messageedits 04:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Aye, and apparently I'm not the only one. I've never typed with an extra C into the search bar, but per your evidence, plenty of others have.LM2000 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. 50 page views a year is about the level where I consider a typo to be plausible (that's purely my opinion, not backed by policy), but since the correct spelling redirect was only created yesterday I'd be interested to see how many people are still using this in a years time. (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per J947. I don't care how implausible a typo appears to be — if people are using it, and if the properly spelled form would be a good redirect, we ought to keep the typo redirect. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

February 28 [ edit ]

Secession crisis of 1860-61 [ edit ]

This does not refer to just the United States. I recommend retargeting this to American Civil War. CrazyBoy826 22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

retargeting this to American Civil War. = good idea. Rjensen (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirects to Template:Translated page [ edit ]

Unused and misleading template redirects. These had all started out as small templates indicating that the page was a translation from the Wikipedia in the given language. The trouble is that the target template is for general uses, and requires the language code to be specified. This means that if you tried to use one of these redirects, the intuitive way won't work – {{Danish|Stød}}, for example, would spit out an error – you'd need to specify "Danish" twice: {{Danish|da|Stød}}. – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete currently unused and unnecessary. Prior to the redirects, they were useful, but have all been replaced. I agree that whoever did the redirects should have chosen a different method of tagging the relevant articles. What about template {{Da}}? --Bejnar (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • {{Da}} consists entirely of the string {{danish}}. It's also unused, and it will be WP:G8-eligible if Template:Danish is deleted. Converting it into a dab page may be an option, as several templates have existed at the title over the years. – Uanfala (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Fa [ edit ]

The title is short for "Farsi" and it had previuosly existed as a redirect to the now deleted {{fa icon}}, which made sense at the time. However, the current target is misleading – it is a template for marking up paragraph-length text as being right-to-left. It's both too narrow (only for paragraphs) and too broad (not restricted to text in Farsi). If there is anything that comes close to what {{fa|...}} could be expected to do in a context like this, that would be {{lang|fa|...}}, but that doesn't have a separate template to retarget to; {{lang-fa}} does something a bit different, and that family of templates don't have redirects of this sort anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Racquel Spurlock [ edit ]

Delete redirect that points to an entirely different person. 2600:1700:F771:58A0:E9F9:3890:932F:447E (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I was unable to locate any connection between the names. This seems like a straightforward delete. ―NK1406 01:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article Katrina Colleton was moved from this redirect about a week after creation by the creator (with edit summary "The article is about Katrina Colleton, not Racquel Spurlock") so presumably it was simply a mistake and so this should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ignite India Education [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Deleted by User:Jimfbleak under CSD G8

Saikyo [ edit ]

Delete per WP:XY. Ambiguous title which can refer to lots of things. Saikyō can be a transliteration of 西京 (Western Capital), 最強 (literally "strongest", used in many anime and manga titles), 埼京 (as in Saikyō Line), and possibly other Japanese terms I am not aware of. The current target is a WP:PTM. feminist (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support changing to a general disambiguation page WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment At first I thought that all of the Wikipedia article targets would be partial title matches, but looking at the text at Saikyo (without the diacritic), the ship is referred to as just "Saikyo". See, for example, The Kwang - ping and a torpedo - boat then joined the Pingyuen , and all three turned their attention upon the Saikyo. quote from Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute volume 20, page 811, there and the previous page. And the two articles about individuals with the Saikyo surname seems to fit with a disambiguation page. --Bejnar (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Fair point, as I failed to realize that "Maru" is simply a suffix for a ship in the Japanese language. I have struck this part from my nomination. feminist (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Zyz, Italy [ edit ]

Not mentioned at the target or its wikilinked articles on other language projects, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: the source is on page on itwiki. Borteddd (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Borteddd, the cited source for that claim ([2]) gives the name as "Ziz" and doesn't appear terribly reliable. I tried searching for both "Zyz" and "Ziz" together with a few terms related to Phoenicians on Google Scholar and couldn't find any relevant results. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a mention of this (or something that looks like an alternative transliteration) at History of Palermo, but I'm having trouble verifying the claim against the sources cited. LlywelynII: you've added that mention in 2018, would you be able to help here? – Uanfala (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Divinium [ edit ]

Fictional element used in the Call of Duty series but not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Consider procedurally closing and re-listing with other fictional things in Category:Fictional materials which are redirects to pages that do not mention them. Or, be WP:BOLD and add a mention of this in the target, making the argument from deletion "disappearium". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Tweaked davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget Hello guys, I accidentally put it in Moscovium and didn't redirect it to Category:Fictional materials. I have made around 10 Redirects and I don't know how the redirect process works. So I would say retarget to the Category Davidwr said and someone should tell me either in this or the talk page about how the redirecting of Fictional and Non-Fiction combined together. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Officer under the United States [ edit ]

Not mentioned in target, unlikely alternate name Onel5969 TT me 17:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. A quick web search shows a diversity of different uses for this terminology relating to the more legally significant term "officer of the United States". Even though this phrasing doesn't have a fixed meaning in itself, it's still useful as a search term for the article that discusses the correct terminology. (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per the similarly kept Office under the United States; likely search term. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Officers of the United States" and "Office under the United States" are both phrases which appear in the constitution; "Officer under the United States" does not, but it's a plausible mix-up of the two phrases. A search shows plenty of examples of "Officer under the United States" appearing in actual legal writing. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Josef Vinatzer [ edit ]

The former CEO of the target article company, but he is no longer mentioned in the article. KnightMove (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Governor 1% [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target, appears to be from one Vox article from 2014 - in no way a common name or search term. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: in addition to the Vox piece you cited, there is a 2016 Jacobin article, a 2012 WNYC article, mentions in a 2011 NYT article, a 2014 Salon article, a 2014 Times Union article, a blog post by Diane Ravitch, and surely more, suggesting sustained usage of the term. WP:R#DELETE says to delete "if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name"; I don't think this qualifies. Is it a biased term and unlikely to be worth mentioning in the target? Surely, but that is not a reason to delete either per WP:RNEUTRAL#3. — The Earwig (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Rethinking this, I was too concerned with trying to find usage of the term. Nil Einne's arguments below are convincing that this is a confusing redirect without discussion at the target and unlikely to be the name anyone knows the subject by. We are the 99% may be a better target, but still leaves the "Governor" part completely unexplained, so I'm unsure it's better than deletion. — The Earwig (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the redirect should point to Andrew Cuomo if something to this effect isn't mentioned in the article per Wikipedia:R#Astonish. Readers should never be left scratching their heads why they're on an article when they search for a term they've heard but don't why it's used. If we're not going to cover something then we don't cover it rather than pretending we do. It would be better to redirect this to something like We are the 99% so readers can at least gain some understanding of why the term might be used. Yes this will mean they won't know who the nickname is for (assuming they don't already) whereas a redirect to Andrew Cuomo would let them guess it's a nick name for Andrew Cuomo but this seems much more minor than the risk of confusion for those who don't understand the context. Attorneygate doesn't seem comparable since although true this does require people to be aware of the usage of -gate suffix to understand (as it isn't mentioned there), it seems far less likely someone will search for the term trying to understand where the -gate comes from than someone will search for the nick name trying to understand it. Importantly it's entirely plausible that someone looking for the article will search for that name since it's a simple short name they know the scandal by. By comparison, it seems fairly unlikely someone would think of Governor 1% as the term to find the article on Andrew Cuomo except for fun. (I.E. it may be fine redirect without explanation when there isn't really any need, but this doesn't seem to be such a case.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    I took the liberty of merging the other discussion. — The Earwig (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ace Deuce [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target, no clear relation. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: a plausible if uncommon nickname, as documented here, here, and here. Doesn't seem common enough to discuss in the article (though it formerly did), but probably good enough to redirect. — The Earwig (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hitler and the Jews [ edit ]

Bad target - the Holocaust isn't just Hitler's opinions on the Jews - Mein Kampf discusses them in depth. While this is a rather significant interaction Hitler had with Jewish people, it's an inappropriate target for this redirect. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

While your analysis is unassailable, I think we can agree that calling the Holocaust a a rather significant interaction Hitler had with Jewish people sets a new record in understatement. EEng 03:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
+1 to both. The requester's wording is inappropriate, but he is right with the request as such. --KnightMove (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It's like saying Jackie Kennedy found her trip to Dallas "rather memorable". EEng 06:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, not an appropriate target for this redirect and I'm not sure that one exists. — The Earwig (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete We do not have an article on either Adolf Hitler's personal beliefs about Jews, nor his policies about them. We have plenty of articles on Nazism and its worldview, but relatively few of the beliefs of individual Nazis. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a book by that title, and if there's an article about it, or its author, it should probably redirect there. Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, why not redirect to Nazi racial theories? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    How about if vague conjunctions not redirect anywhere at all? EEng 19:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY. This conjunction results in a vague redirect with lots of possible targets. (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of books about Nazi Germany#Hitler and the Nazi Party as R with possibilities — I believe Hitler and the Jews: The Genesis of the Holocaust is WP:NBOOKS-notable, having been reviewed by German History (journal) [3] and Foreign Affairs [4], and having been cited by other RSes [5]. The book is already an entry on the list, and the redirect could probably be expanded into an article about the book. Levivich harass/hound 00:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Honestly, I believe thinking of redirects as search aids is, like, pre-Google; I've never, ever found something in a search via a redirect. The use case for redirects is for linking e.g so that [[Franklin Roosevelt]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], and [[FDR]] will all work. EEng 01:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    If it's notable, then I don't see any reason not to create a 3-sentence long stub about the book instead of deleting the page. Σσς(Sigma) 12:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget to List of books about Nazi Germany per above - not specifically to the section "Hitler and the Nazi Party" because the book is listed in two different sections. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Cessation of life [ edit ]

Pointless, created as a redirect, not what draftspace is for. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is a useful title for a mainspace redirect (it's a definition of death and not a plausible search term), but I want to object to nominating with this rationale. Draft redirects like this are usually created by new users who cannot create mainspace pages and don't know about WP:AFC/R (the article wizard does not point them there, and it's not always easy to find). It would be more helpful for everyone involved to treat them like AFC/R submissions and either accept them (create as redirects in the mainspace) or reject them (decline the AfC submission with a message to the submitter explaining why their suggestion does not make a good redirect, as in this case). — The Earwig (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to article space Seems like a reasonable enough search term and is unambiguous. Either move this redirect or make a new one in article space. (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to mainspace per Earwig and our unregistered friend. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Yhdysvallat [ edit ]

No reason for this to exist, a redirect with no history from a nonsense title in draft space. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per G1. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Finnish may be a strange language to English speakers, but come on, it's not nonsense! wikt:Yhdysvallat! Though this would still be appropriate to delete per WP:RFOREIGN and prior discussion here and here. — The Earwig (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Nothing particularly Finnish about the united states, and no point having a redirect from draftspace if the article was never at this title. (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Walmart* [ edit ]

Implausible misspelling. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak keep* as a kind of stylization of the logo. That's how the star appears next to the name,* but I'm not 100 sure* about this course of action.* Regards, SONIC678* 02:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • true I guess. In looking at redirects I saw about twenty things like Wal*Mart which I didn't nominate, I guess since that was their previous logo. I haven't been to a Wal-Mart in quite a while, lol. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sonic678's argument is reasonable, but I don't think this works out to a plausible search term, as someone who's gone to the trouble of typing 'Walmart' already will have it come up before they can add the asterisk. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Transgendered (Male-Bodied) [ edit ]

Implausible search term, was created as an article before being redirected in 2005. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Implausible search term, weird capitalization, Transgendered already redirs to Transgender, plus it wouldn't break anything. SreySrostalk 02:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete not even clear what someone would be searching for, and I can't imagine them typing all that, and not selecting one of the pop-ups that were offered before they got that far. Mathglot (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - "Transgendered" is an improper term in itself, let alone with this qualifier. This reads like someone attempting a pathological categorization, and it's sort of unpleasant. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hair Fairies (people) [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably delete as an unlikely search term with this capitalization and parenthetical, and as a questionable target. "Hair fairies" is (as mentioned in various RS) an older term for a category of gay queens, some (perhaps even many) of whom were trans women, but it is unclear that "Transgender" is unambiguously the right target for a redirect about that. "Hair fairies" are already briefly mentioned in San Francisco Pride, and if someone is feeling energetic, they could probably add a sentence to an article like LGBT history which could make a better target(?). (I found enough uses of the term to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion as a dictionary entry, though; revise if needed.) -sche (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If there is usage in reliable sources then I would think that it would be best to add an entry to List of LGBT slang terms and retarget this there. (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    True, that would also work. -sche (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete – unused, implausible, derogatory, and over-capitalized to boot. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Serial Shooter [ edit ]

This is a generic term that somehow got redirected to one particular pair of criminals. EEng 01:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per EEng. -sche (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Retarget per's comment. -sche (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Origin is via an earlier article title from before the culprits were known, but looking back 15 years later (WP:RECENCY and all that), I don't know if this can be called the primary topic of this redirect. — The Earwig (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    EEng, want to bundle Serial Shooters into this nom as well? — The Earwig (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Far be it from me to shoot that suggestion down. EEng 06:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Retarget is likely better per the IP below. — The Earwig (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Serial killer. These seem to be commonly used terms for serial killers that kill by shooting, and Serial Shooter got over 17,000 page views last year. (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    "Retarget" is maybe not the best word choice in this particular situation. EEng 23:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'll make sure not to overshoot my target while figuring out the best shot for this redirect. We're all gunning for the right outcome here, after all. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Re...uh...put it somewhere else (to Serial killer). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete – if this seems useful, then put it at Serial shooter instead, without the over-capitalization. Nobody is going to cap Shooter if looking for this. Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    wikt:cap#Verb, sense 8. EEng 14:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

February 27 [ edit ]

Jimmy Zoppi [ edit ]

Alleged pseudonym for James Carter Cathcart. Cannot find a reliable source of information for this connection which is why this redirect page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homechallenge55 (talkcontribs) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - Currently mentioned in the article that this is a pseudonym of his. Also mentioned on IMDB (admittedly not really a reliable source) as one of his alternate names (right near bottom of article [6]). Also the article was called Jimmy Zoppi for 12 years or so (moved in 2018, see Talk:James Carter Cathcart#Requested move 14 September 2018) so a lot of external links etc could be broken by deleting this. A7V2 (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ken Gates [ edit ]

Alleged pseudonym for Rodger Parsons. Cannot find a reliable source of information for this connection which is why this redirect page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homechallenge55 (talkcontribs) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: I just tagged both redirects nominated by User:Homechallenge55, since they were both missing an RfD tag. CycloneYoris talk! 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Less issues with deleting than Jimmy Zoppi above as the article no-longer uses the old name (due to recent edits by the nom, and as use of the other name were unsourced). Article was moved back in 2007 with the justification "Since it appears to be his actual name, it should also be the article entry name". Note also that IMDB does list Ken Gates as an alternate name of Roger Parsons (near bottom of [7]). A7V2 (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

1993 Kids' Choice Awards [ edit ]

Honestly interested to see what others believe about this:

A KCA ceremony was not held in this specific year. For years people had thought there was, but in more recent years there has been plenty of research done, finding out it did not happen. In fact, I have the full '92 and '94 shows in my possession, the intros of each have the announcer say they are the sixth and seventh annual respectively (as can be seen on their articles).

Looking back at a previous version of the article, plenty of the information is actually for the 1992 ceremony, including:

  • The date of November 14, 1993 - 1992 ceremony was actually on November 14, 1992 - the promo sourced in that old version of the article is actually for 1992
  • Hosts Brian Austin Green, Holly Robinson, and Tori Spelling actually hosted the 1992 show
  • The celebrity sliming at the bottom of the article is actually for 1992
  • The 2005 KCA press site itself is actually incorrect- most (if not, all) the times the year 1993 is mentioned is actually the 1994 show

After it was figured out that a ceremony didn't occur that year, it was simply redirected to Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. However, I'd actually think the redirect should be deleted altogether (and possibly protected from being recreated), as now it makes no sense to even have a redirect for a non-existent ceremony. Magitroopa (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Actually it sounds like we should have some encyclopaedic content about this - even if it's just a sourced sentence saying that there wasn't one. "For years people had thought there was [a ceremony in 1993]" means that this is a very plausible search term, as does it being part of a predictable series, so deletion is definitely the wrong thing here. Thryduulf (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ciley Myrus [ edit ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

This redirect is a spoonerism, not a likely or plausible search term. I propose deletion under deletion criteria 3 and criteria 8 of Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don’t agree that it is commonly used, it has had 674 views over the past ~5 years (and around 50 of those have been while this RfD has been open) , while Miley Cyrus has had over 30 million. I’m also not sure what purpose it serves, as surely someone who can search for this spoonerism is capable of reversing it and thereby getting the correct title? ƒirefly ( t · c ) 23:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not like it's harming anything and it has saved time for 600 people at the very least. 600 people helped is a lot in the context of misnomer redirects. J947messageedits 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Matt Halprin [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target. There are passing mentions at Omidyar Network and Sunlight Foundation, however. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uninhibited Search gives better results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

File:W. S. Gilbert - Alice B. Woodward - The Pinafore Picture Book - Frontispiece - Original. [ edit ]

Unused File: redirect seemingly created by accident, with no foreseeable use. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

[ edit ]

Unused File: redirect with no foreseeable use. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. CrazyBoy826 19:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Jews against Zionism [ edit ]

Deletion. As per WP:RfD#DELETE If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. The redirect is a campaign group; the target article mentions the philosophy and another group but not this one NOTE lower case a in against; a UK secular group, not the book or the US based religious group. Jontel (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Buttons for Eyes (film) [ edit ]

Not a nickname by which the film is called, nor was it a working title. I'm sure anyone looking for "that film where people have buttons for eyes" could Google it and find the Wikipedia article. Dominicmgm (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Added old RfD. J947messageedits 23:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak delete there are lots of references to this film when searching for "Buttons for eyes" on google and excluding Wikipedia, but at least most of them are using it as a descriptor not a name and there are a nearly equal number of hits for other things such as using buttons for eyes of soft toys. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lindi Cistia Prabha [ edit ]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 18:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, not sure if it's a recent change, but this name is currently mentioned at the target as a 2005 environment ambassador. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Included in target since 2014[8] and also present at the time of nomination.[9] However, there is no requirement for XfD claims to be correct so my claim may not be correct. Thincat (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:RfD#d10. Yes the name is definitely mentioned at the target and has been for some time, but this mention is really just a circular link without providing any real information other than when she won this competition. A7V2 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

February 26 [ edit ]

Not Even Doom Music [ edit ]

Not even mentioned at the target article. Going through the edit history it appears to be a non-notable meme. Dominicmgm (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment:Not even mentioned? I see what you did there ;) Also, would it be possible to add some information about Not Even Doom Music to the article? It was fairly popular back in the day, at least from what I can remember. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Carolyn Bothwell [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Based on the similar Carolyn Bothwell Doran redirect I assume this is Carolyn Doran mentioned in the text? (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello fellow Wikipedians - In this Washington Post article (which is used as a citation at the pertinent part of the Wikimedia Foundation article, we can find the following quote: "Before she left the foundation in July, Carolyn Bothwell Doran, 45, had moved up from a part-time bookkeeping position and spent six months as an executive responsible for personnel and financial management.". Hope this is helpful. KConWiki (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per KConWiki and the IP, and add a mention if needed. CycloneYoris talk! 00:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


This is a bit odd: I can't work out if it means HERMES-A and MINOTAUR, or HERMES-A also known as MINOTAUR. Anyway, the target article has no information about either or any indication of why the redirect targets there. At one of the linked articles NEE-01 Pegaso, HERMES-A is mentioned but MINOTAUR is not: this might be a better target if this redirect is kept, but it might be better to delete since Enwiki seems to have no information about the project. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Did you review the page history? This was an article from 2010 to 2013, and I think the former article answers your questions. - Eureka Lott 05:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're right: this is HERMES-A together with MINOTAUR. I suppose restoring that 2013 blank & redirect is an option. But the current situation is just confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

New Jersey–New York relations [ edit ]

These search terms are not equivalent to the target article, nor does there appear to be any other appropriate target. Delete unless a justification or alternative can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. While the Port authority does oversee some shared infrastructure for these two states the target page is not equivalent to "New Jersey–New York relations". I was unable to find anything that would be a better target. (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Kalininia [ edit ]

Not mentioned at the target. The edit summary for this redirect's creation, Possible redirect that matches the Baltic countries that all end with the sound "ia", doesn't seem like an adequate justification for creating this redirect in the absence of any evidence that this term is actually in use. Searching on Google Scholar, I found a few people that have this as a surname, but no references to Kaliningrad. signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Please keep since it is a harmless redirect, I just think that it fits the "R with possibilities" tag but I do not know fully. Otherwise delete if other editors overwhelmingly insist in deleting it. PyroFloe (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely redirect target to a non-existent political entity. Also not sure why it would redirect to Kaliningrad Oblast, instead of to the city of Kaliningrad, itself. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Wolfgang Becker (director) [ edit ]

Delete: This was a speedy delete request denied, and turned into a redirect to a DAB page. I stand by my original reasoning for delete: This relink page should never have been created in the first place, since there are two German film directors of the same name, who I've moved to Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1910) and Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954) now, after this discussion. This frees up Wolfgang Becker to be the disambiguation page. There is no plausible use for this former relink page, since it cannot target both directors at the same time, nor become a disambiguation page. But its continued existence can lead to plenty of confusion and false linking. The tag given to it now (from incomplete disambiguation) may be technically true, but doesn't help to address the potential harm, and lack of usefulness it has going forward. Sprachraum (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as {{R from insufficient disambiguation}}. Armbrust TheHomunculus 09:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is nothing confusing about redirecting "Wolfgang Becker (director)" to a dab page that only has two Wolfgang Becker entries that are both directors. Having incomplete disambiguators redirecting to the DAB page is a good thing. ~ GB fan 12:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per GB fan. {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} redirects are very useful as they enable people to find the content they are looking for if they know that the person they want to read about is a director but don't know that there is another director with the same name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Both people on that page are directors. Links are not the only reason to have redirects, for example they can be searched for (not at all unlikely in this case). A7V2 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


Stop error codes not mentioned in target, and even if they were these search terms are very implausible. So delete. Aasim (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I haven't looked in detail yet, but these are extremely plausible search terms as they are exactly the sort of thing people will be looking on Wikipedia to find information about. If we have anywhere with relevant content at least most of these should not be redlinks. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Trainweck. There are too many and too different redirects here to reliably evaluate. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to call this a Trainwreck - way too many redirects nominated at once and a lot of these do have valid alternate targets. Some of the ones I've found so far:
etc. Someone with more knowledge of these error codes might be able to find valid targets for the others too (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Screech... crash. Split per above. Dominicmgm (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per above.CrazyBoy826 19:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    @CrazyBoy826: which redirects are you advocating be deleted and which are you advocating redirecting and where are you advocating redirecting them to? Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: The ones the IP said above. CrazyBoy826 20:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    My comment is by no means an exhaustive list of possible targets, it's just the ones I was able to find in about 15 mins with a bit of searching. I have no opinion on whether the others should be kept or deleted. As I said someone with more knowledge of stop error codes might be able to find suitable targets. (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

One-ring fraud [ edit ]

Not currently mentioned at target, but multiple similar explanations are at Telephone numbers in the Dominican Republic#One-ring scam 809 calls, Area code 268#One Ring Scam, and Area code 284#One ring scam. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • My first thought is that we should have some content about this at a central location, either the redirect or a section at the current target would seem best. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Gregor Eisenhorn [ edit ]

This is a character from the Warhammer 40,000 universe who only has only a passing mention in the main Warhammer 40,000 article in the section about a proposed TV adaptation. He is however the protagonist of a trilogy of books (Eisenhorn) a video game based on the books (Eisenhorn: Xenos) and the aforementioned planned TV show based on the books. I propose retargeting these to the article on the book trilogy as the main work the character has appeared in. (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Immolator [ edit ]

This redirect is the name of a tank from the warhammer 40,000 universe used by the sisters of battle faction. The tank is not mentioned in the main article, and the article it used to target (Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000) was deleted in 2011 following an afd nomination. The other potential target (Sisters of Battle) was converted into a redirect a couple of years ago after an AfD nomination. I propose retargeting this to Immolation. (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

wiki sandbox [ edit ]

Split or bespoke decisionsClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close - wrong forum.

Water Pasteurisation Indicator [ edit ]

No mention in target article Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Homosexual promiscuity [ edit ]

While the page does discuss promiscuity and gay men, this title seems unnecessarily derogatory and stereotypical; heterosexual promiscuity doesn't exist as a redirect, so why this? Bangalamania (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Could be a plausible search term. How many pageviews does it get? I can't check via the "stats" link, because Toolforge requires Javascript (probably) to be enabled :( DesertPipeline (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    16 Page views in the last year, 48 in total since creation. (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: It doesn't get many page views as mentions, which is why this is only a "weak" keep, but I can't argue that the redirect serves no purpose, so I wouldn't really agree with deletion. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to LGBT stereotypes#Sex and relationships. Possibly a non-NPOV redirect, but this target is the most relevant section for the stereotype as a concept. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep that a redirect title is biased is not a reason to delete it (WP:RNEUTRAL), redirects can take readers from non-neutral titles to neutral ones. Google immediately finds reliable sources using the term [11][12][13]. Promiscuity strikes me as a better target for the term as it has a much more substantial discussion of promiscuity amongst homosexual men compared to LGBT stereotypes#Sex and relationships. Hut 8.5 18:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Homosexual prostitute [ edit ]

While 'homosexual' generally means 'homosexual male' in English, in theory 'homosexual prostitute' could still refer to lesbian prostitutes/sex workers, or women prostitutes who have sex with other women. Bangalamania (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Hypothetically. But how likely is the phrase to be casually used/searched that way? (If someone was thinking of women who have sex with women for pay, they'd probably type "lesbian prostitute".) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lesbian prostitute does not exist. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I assure you that they do. :) But female sex workers with female clients are not common, and as far as I can tell we don't have an article with information about them. Is "homosexual prostitute" a topic that someone might plausibly look for? I think so. Do we have an article with the information they want? I think that's very likely to be male prostitution. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Prostitution per nomination. The current redirect is misleading, and there's not enough notability to distinguish it over other forms of prostitution. --wL<speak·check> 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Ambiguous and not well used - only got 10 page views in the last year. (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete ambiguous and hardly used. I don't see much point in retargeting to Prostitution as that doesn't have a discussion of homosexual prostitution specifically. Hut 8.5 18:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In the hood [ edit ]

I think this is not very useful and should be deleted. Or at least retargeted to Hood (disambiguation). Un assiolo (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Redirect >>>>Neighbourhood, as this a 'hood slang. Djflem (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The alternate capitalisation In the Hood currently targets Restless (Trae album) as the name of a song, maybe this one should point to the same place? (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the disambiguation page; while "the hood" literally means "neighbourhood" in hood slang, it most often refers to African-American ghettos, i.e. the neighbourhoods of the original users of the slang. So clarifying on "Hood (disambiguation)" that this is a term originating in AAVE which is used to mean "African-American ghetto" more specifically, or "neighbourhoods" more generally may be appropriate. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Two different targets are being considered here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

February 25 [ edit ]

Join-calculus (programming language) [ edit ]

Join-calculus appears to be notable. The Join-calculus programming language is not. Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Embarrassed naked female [ edit ]

Implausible redirect, not mentioned at the target. gnu57 22:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Note I've added Embarrassed nude female to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore article (at nude) without prejudice and retarget the naked redirect there. These are absolutely plausible search terms, getting 508 (naked) and 360 (nude) views last year. There was an effectively unsourced (the only reference is to Urban Dictionary) stub at Embarrassed nude female that was redirected by Ironholds without discussion. There is also an unsourced draft at User:ENF - Embarrassed Nude Female/sandbox. I'd be frankly astonished if there wasn't sources available to improve these, but finding them is going to require filtering out the massive number of porn and erotic story hits (the latter are also common on a books search) (which gives another indication of the plausibility of the search terms). I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography as I guess people there will have more knowledge of how to find useful sources. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Unboundedness [ edit ]

These should point at the same target. "Unbounded" does not only refer to functions, but also to sets in general. I'm okay with redirecting them to Infinity, at which the first one currently points, but that does not mention the corresponding antonyms as listed at Boundedness, for which a reader is pretty likely to be actually looking (cf. redirects Unbounded function, Unbounded set etc.). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Transform the noun into a dab page, and redirect the adjective there. D.Lazard (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Boundedness. In most cases the "bounded" and "unbounded" version of something don't have separate articles. Note, however, that Bounded operator and Unbounded operator is an exception; if we do end up deciding to have Unboundedness redirect to Boundedness, then remember to list "Unbounded operator" there. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Armada Music redirects [ edit ]

Not mentioned in target article, where it was removed as unsourced. Cannot find another target. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Chris Schweizer [ edit ]

Ambiguous redirect; multiple individuals with this exact name. Was removed from target as unsourced. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I think in this case the search results do a reasonable job of finding all the various bits of content we have on people with this name. (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Allen Watts [ edit ]

No mention in target; was removed as unsourced. Not a known alternative name for Alan Watts as far as I know. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yakovlev (disambig) [ edit ]

The target is not even a "disambig", and this is a nonstandard disambiguation anyway, so it will generate intdab errors if used as a redirect to a "disambig" page. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PWN [ edit ]

This was initially pointing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter, but was retargeted by an anonymous editor. Backlinks refer both to the wrestling newsletter and content ownership, while the hatnote at the current target links to the wrestling notability guidelines. I'd prefer retargeting this to one of the wrestling pages, as you can usually pwn n00bs, but not content. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to wrestling per nom. Then give the IP a big slap with a wet trout, accompanied with a big "You just got pwned by WP:RfD!" message. (Did I use that right? Am I a millennial???) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: I was about to close this as retarget, but the proposed target still seems quite unclear.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nominator. No one uses the word "pwn" in a serious context. JIP | Talk 18:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

AB 2 [ edit ]

There is nothing in the article or at List of Alberta provincial highways to indicate this highway is known as "AB 2", and AB 2 is ambiguous with Aichi AB-2. My change of target reverted by @NASCARfan0548:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The state/province postal code with the number is standard pretty much everywhere in the US and Canada. Aichi AB-2 has a hyphen. HotdogPi 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, per HotdogPi. NASCARfan0548  20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. There seem to be a number of things called AB2 or variations thereof, so far we have the highway and the Aichi AB-2, and in addition there is a proposed variant of the Bernard AB 1 that wasn't built, a classification of the Curtiss Model F, a class of Linear amplifiers, a mathematical category mentioned in AB5 category, an obsolete UK postcode (AB postcode area) and probably more. plenty of potential targets. (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambig at AB2 and reidrect this there, covering AB 2, AB-2 and Ab2 and AB2 as they are all highly ambiguous with each other. In addition to what the anon mentions above there is some sort of classification in multiple star systems (see HD 193322, Beta Capricorni, and others), a rank in the Royal Navy (Seaman (rank)#United Kingdom), and something related to the naming of Cuneiform signs. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Zabadani [ edit ]

This was moved by Greyshark09 in July 2015, but should have probably been disambiguated between the current target and Battle of Zabadani (2015). Alternatively, the page could be moved back here if it is the primary topic. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Supercalifragilexpialidocious [ edit ]

This is the only misspelling redirect that is missing a syllable in the middle of a word. (istic is missing.) Only 69 total pageviews since records began, or about 0.033 per day. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unused and forgetting an entire syllable does not appear to be a plausible typo. (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap and this looks like a plausible typo to me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:年数 [ edit ]

No consensusClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Rhythwyn Evans [ edit ]

This person is not mentioned in the target article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete both - perhaps they were mentioned in the target at one time, but they are not now. Onel5969 TT me 12:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both. It is confusing to land at a page with no mention or other indication of why one is there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not mentioned at target, and no particular reason why he would be. Evans did 91 laps for 91st birthday after being inspired by Captain Tom [14], but no reason for that to be included in Captain Tom article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. It's not helpful to readers to redirect them to an article where this person is not menitoned. (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Katy (singer) [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

List of governors-general of Nepal [ edit ]

Completely different things. Governor-generals were actual governors with executive power over their domain. Nepal never had one of those. Resident ministers could rise to "powers behind the throne" in states where they were allowed to. In Nepal's case, resident ministers were no more than ambassadors who were confined to the estates they were assigned to live in. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The article content in the page history is a cut and paste move from List of British resident ministers in Nepal. (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete- because it is giving completely wrong information. There are no reference that proves that any governors-general were ever present in Nepal. nirmal (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I previously had PRODed the article as it failed verifiability. --Yeti Dai (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Chat [ edit ]

DisambiguateClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Category 5 (film) [ edit ]

This film was originally known as "Category 5", but the film was renamed to "The Hurricane Heist". However, there is also a 2014 film of the same name, which Google search more likely brings up. Also, the redirect has its own article on German Wikipedia, and since 2014 film is notable enough on that wiki, it would be best to delete to encourage article creation on the English Wikipedia. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have drafted the film for this redirect. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete the redirect when the draft is ready for acceptance:
      • I have declined the draft because it has no references.
      • I have added a hatnote to the draft for the movie that is the subject of this RFD.
      • The draft should be updated and resubmitted.
      • Please do not delete the redirect until the draft is ready for acceptance.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I added {{R with possibilities}} AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 04:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. add R from former name until draft is ready. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 04:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

MO3 (rapper) [ edit ]

MO3 (rapper) previously had its own article, which was proposed for deletion for being non-notable and promotional. It was later changed to a redirect to Boosie Badazz, an entirely different person, and then to MO3, which is even less related, as it is a music file format and not a person in the first place. The article was recreated as Mo3 (rapper) and deleted almost instantly for being non-notable and promotional. There really is no place for the title to redirect to, least of all MO3. I propose to delete this. JIP | Talk 00:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. The current target is unsuitable and there is no better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore article and send to AfD as a contested prod. RfD should be being used to delete article content. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Question/Comment - the new article (Mo3 (rapper)) was deleted by the nom, User:JIP. JIP, was the article you deleted substantially the same as the pre-redirect version of the redirect in question? If they were the same, then I suppose delete (since the other two targets are definitely not useful). Otherwise restore article and send to AfD per Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    @A7V2: the two are not substantially identical, and would be better merged. The first paragraph of the new article was very poorly worded (very promotional), but if sourceable and reworded would make a good addition. Likewise the career section of the new article, if sourceable, would be a good inclusion. The death section at the pre-redirect version is better worded. The final sentence of the new article was a BLP violation (an unsourced accusation that a named individual was identified as MO3's killer and had been arrested for that). Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    User:Jenyire2 marked the article Mo3 (rapper) for speedy deletion one hour and twenty minutes after it had been created. I had a look at the article and saw that it was pretty much purely promotional and had no references whatsoever. Looking at the contents of the two articles, the only major differences appear to be that the new article was more promotional and had no references. JIP | Talk 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
(replying to both) - in that case I would say restore the article and send to AfD. I'll leave whether sections of the deleted article should be merged in to others. A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Redirect to Boosie_Badazz#Health where MO3 is mentioned, or "Restore article and send to AfD as a contested prod". --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel [ edit ]

Film no longer untitled, hence redirect is unnecessary. Possibly could be tagged with {{G6}}. – Sean Stephens (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't well thought out, as the IP vote below points out. Keep since it is unambiguous, and deleting could break internal and/or external links (and no real reason has been given to delete other than unnecessary). A7V2 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Why would we not delete the draft link? -- /Alex/21 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The default option is to keep unless there is a reason to delete (and as far as I can see none of the reasons to delete apply). Given that that was a working title for the article, and that the draft has history, it is acontent fork so keeping as a redirect will eliminate the possibility of it being recreated. Additionally, if it had been sent to WP:MfD it would be speedily redirected due to WP:SRE so there is no point deleting such redirects. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
For starters, there is no film titled Spider-Man: Phone Home, so a redirect from either the draft- or main-space is not required. It was never a working title. -- /Alex/21 03:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect, to avoid breaking wikilinks. The film is no longer untitled, but it used to be, and consequently there are places on Wikipedia and elsewhere that still link to the "Untitled" article name. We would break those links if we didn't have this as a redirect. - (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
There are zero mainspace articles that link to the "Untitled" article name. -- /Alex/21 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. This is still receiving 400 - 500 page views a day, so there's some significant incoming traffic from somewhere. Just because a name was announced a week ago doesn't mean that everyone searching for this movie is going to know it. We should revaluate in a years time or so when traffic has died off. (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Alex21. Starzoner (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Opera Scotland [ edit ]

Delete because they are different organizations ( and Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom (would also argue against a future creation of Opera Wales as a redirect for the Welsh National Opera). Scarabocchio (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Opera in Scotland (changed to delete, see below) as it would appear a plausible search term for that article. It seems as though Opera Scotland is a non-notable website/organisation which writes about the history of opera in Scotland so unlikely to cause confusion. A7V2 (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It's not appropriate to retarget to "Scottish Opera" when Opera Scotland is not mentioned there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean? I'm not suggesting we re-target to "Scottish Opera" (the current target). I'm saying that Opera Scotland is a plausible search term for Opera in Scotland. A7V2 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
"Opera Scotland" is the actual name of an organization (which is cited a few times in articles). That organization is not mentioned at "Opera in Scotland". I agree that "Opera Scotland" may be a plausible search term, but a REDIRECT would be misleading, unless we introduce hatnotes that allow external links (which I'm not advocating). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the Opera in Scotland article, and in a way that underlines that it should not be a redirect (to anything). ("For Scotland the task [of establishing the history] is more challenging. Attempts must therefore be made to identify and build the detail of early performances and casts using mainly newspaper reviews, programmes and playbills. An ambitious attempt to pursue this online, and unique in trying to work nationally rather than in relation to a single company, is that of OperaScotland, a website for listings and performance history. Current content runs from 1755 to the present day, includes 650 operas and the names of over 11,000 performers.") Scarabocchio (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
... perhaps work that up into a section within the Opera in Scotland article, one which has its own anchor, and set the redirect to that specific section? Scarabocchio (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: Being the name of an organisation is not reason enough to not create or keep a redirect. Probably just about any common English noun is the name of a company somewhere. The test is if it is likely to cause confusion. If the organisation is at least cited on Wikipedia I agree that it could cause confusion as it is more likely someone will be searching for it, so I am switching my !vote to delete (especially since someone searching "Opera Scotland" will probably get Opera in Scotland in the first few results anyway). A7V2 (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: No longer untitled. Kailash29792(talk) 18:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Did you mean to post this in the section above? JIP | Talk 20:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

February 24 [ edit ]

Federated States of America [ edit ]

An internet search suggests that these are names for fictional entities and are not equivalent to the US. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep since it is a harmless redirect that talks about America being a "Federated (federal) state, Delete if other editors says so. I just think that since the US is a federal state that it fits, I had no prior idea of it being a "alternate history country" or something. My rationale is that the article Federated state includes America, so I followed it. PyroFloe (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget Federal States of America to List of states and territories of the United States since these are the "Federal states". Otherwise probably just delete both since I doubt someone searching this is looking for the country itself, though I'm not certain what they are looking for, and I note these are very recently created. A7V2 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • weak delete per the nominator. I wouldn't object to retargetting per AV72 as other "Federal states of" and "Federated states of" titles that are not the name of a country (Federated States of Micronesia) refer to subnational entities. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 23:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't find the retargeting options convincing enough for the exact phrases and capitalisation. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Spypeout [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target nor anywhere on Wikipedia. A web search also returns very few results. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Untitled Star Trek television series [ edit ]

Should be deleted. Redirect, originally referring to Star Trek: Picard, is now too vague and unclear since there are no untitled Star Trek series presently, in development or otherwise. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The Untitled television show is for the show, expected to be titled 'Star Trek: Section 31' , staring star Michelle Yeoh as Philippa Georgiou, and I think it is in development or was until covid-19 may have delayed it some. (Michelle Yeoh Standalone ‘Star Trek’ Series in Development at CBS All Access) -- (Jrooksjr | C | T) 03:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Josh Silverman [ edit ]

This is not mentioned at the target, but could be retargeted to Skype Technologies or Etsy (same person). I'm not sure whether the person mentioned at The Frogs (band) is the same. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

1234567890 [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 4#1234567890

0000123456 [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. The nomination matches of what I was planning to draw. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Twestival [ edit ]

This was redirected to the current target after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twestival, but is not currently mentioned at the target. Given the AfD, I suggest deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - What was Twestival? Is it potentially still a notable topic that could be included on a twitter related page? BlackholeWA (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Born July 2, 1929 [ edit ]

Per #Born January 22, 1955 below. Note that these were automatically created by a bot, probably in error. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete too ambiguous.Less Unless (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete serves no purpose at all, never should have been created -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely implausible way of searching for the redirect's target. (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Born January 22, 1955 [ edit ]

another pointless "Born foo" redirect that isn't a plausible search term or being used Nohomersryan (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete too ambiguous.Less Unless (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely implausible way of searching for the redirect's target. (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Tedious [ edit ]

While manual labour is generally tedious, it is not the only sort of thing that is tedious. This redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Should it be redirected to monotonous then? I made the redirect when I couldn’t think of a good synonym for tedious. Dull? Boring? These are synonyms that would make sense to use. I will acknowledge that manual labor isn’t a very good redirect. Clamless (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to wiktionary? (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Tedium is a redirect to boredom. That might work here, too. - Eureka Lott 19:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect. This seems to meet the criteria for a soft redirect to wikt. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Facterium [ edit ]

This redirect was created on accident, and I don't think this was intentional. –MJLTalk 18:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedily delete as G6. Ugh, what a mess; compounded by the round-robin swap, it's now nearly impossible to know what happened. Every redirect here should be G6ed and contributions histmerged into the live article. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Paul 012: The page swap was necessary because the user moved their user page into mainspace instead of their sandbox. The problem came because the leftover redirects were not deleted quickly (which I probably should've considered in hindsight). –MJLTalk 19:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy G6 created by accident when a user moved their userpage into article space. (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


Julius Caesar currently has so many redirects the list takes up more than one page. I don't see any use for these capitalized, elongated or archaized forms, especially those that combine ligatures with classical spelling (the possibilities for those are endless) – they're too forced and artificial. Some aren't even correct, as he was never called "Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus". There's also "Julius caesar quotes" and "I am the republic" whose purpose I don't follow. Avilich (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I BOLDly retargeted Commentaries of Julius Cæsar to the disambiguation page Caesar's Commentaries (where the non-ligatured version points) and updated its listing above. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Julius caesar quotes" does seem to be getting a couple hundred page views a year on average, and there was a list article there in the page history. Perhaps soft redirect to his wikiquote entry? (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    • TRAINWRECK per below, way too many redirects of way too disparate worth. "I am the republic" seems to be a star wars meme, "Julius Caesar quotes" is a reasonable place for a wikiquote redirect, "Casear complex" is a valid redirect to a medical theory that is mentioned in the article, "Commentaries of Julius Cæsar" has allready been retargeted to its proper article and at least one of the name redirects is correct. No prejudice against renomination in small groups. (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is likely to end in a train wreck given the vast diversity of redirects, especially as a page having a lot of redirects is not a reason to delete any of them. For now though keep Ivlivs Cæsar as correct, harmless and potentially useful. Soft redirect Julius caesar quotes to Q:Julius Caesar (or soft redirect the correctly capitalised version and retarget this one there) where readers will find quotes by and about Julius Caesar. I've not investigated any others yet. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Very well, I removed a bit of the 'diversity'. Having lots of useless redirects with zero views encumbering the list where they're enumerated is absolutely a reason to delete them. There's also nothing correct about a combination of classical spelling with ligatures like Ivlivs Cæsar, it's too artificial and no more likely than the hundreds of other such possible combinations. Avilich (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all. None of these (at least whatever remains as of this edit) look useful to me—all of them are eclectic mixes of orthography, nomenclature, ligatures, capitalization, and none of them are likely search terms. Anyone who can't find Caesar without one of these redirects has bigger problems. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Burmese–Siamese War (1767–1774) [ edit ]

The period 1767–1774 saw Siamese factions fighting to gain footing in the power vacuum that followed the Fall of Ayutthaya at the end of the Burmese–Siamese War (1765–1767). Since the Burmese forces had retreated to deal with the Sino-Burmese War, they were mostly absent from the scene, and these faction struggles cannot be characterised as a "Burmese–Siamese war". The redirect was created by VFF0347, and recently converted to an article by User:Tanakorn Srichaisuphakit before being reverted back to a redirect. Since the article was mostly a fork of the listing in the main article, and the redirect had previously stood for a year, I think RfD is the proper venue. Suggesting deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 16:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC))

Hello. I created Burmese-Siamese War (1767-1774) without any content and then redirected that article to Burmese-Siamese wars because I had written a short summary of that war when I enhanced the listing of the various wars in the "Burmese-Siamese wars" article. I saw that Paul_012 recently removed my short summary from the list of Burmese–Siamese wars. I'm not a scholar on the subject so I defer to Paul_012's opinion on the removal of the war from the list. And now that my summary has been removed from the list of Burmese-Siamese wars, a redirect is inappropriate. What's needed I think is a full and complete article on the Burmese-Siamese War (1767-1774). Paul_012, you seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Would you consider taking on the task? Thanks, VFF0347 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
VFF0347, The information is currently covered separately at Thonburi Kingdom#Reunification and expansion and Taksin#Five Separate States. There might be potential for consolidating the information and expanding into a separate article, but I don't think that's currently necessary. I don't think that retargeting the current redirect would be appropriate, since as I mentioned the main issue with the redirect is the factional fighting is not and should not be described as a "Burmese–Siamese war". --Paul_012 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Paul_012, Thank you, sir. Should Burmese-Siamese War (1767-1774) be deleted? Sounds to me like it's redundant. I support whatever you think is appropriate. Regards, VFF0347 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for understanding. Whether or not to delete should be determined here by this discussion, which will remain open for further input for at least a week or so. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Suffusion [ edit ]

Current target does not mention the word "suffusion", and it could presumably relate to many other things. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: Article was edited to add "blood suffusion" as a synonym. Still not sure if it's the primary use of suffusion enough to merit the redirect, though. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep. I've added the missing term to the article. If there are other notable meanings with corresponding articles, we may create a disambiguation page. --TadejM my talk 03:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per, or delete. Not a synonym. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Magellan (film) [ edit ]

Came across this during NPP this morning, where another editor had put a CSD tag on it. Since it doesn't really qualify for CSD, I brought it here. This editor has no credits for Magellan in his article. The other editor, Sprachraum, wrote the following in their CSD: "For three years, this has been a nonsensical relink to the page of a film editor who had nothing to do with any film named "Magellan". As can be seen in the history, the root cause is that Brinlong created an article draft for the film Magellan (2017) in the main article space instead on his user subpage – then copied the Infobox film from Interstellar, left part of those details in the box, including Interstellar editor Lee Smith, and abandoned the "article" in a state not even close to a legitimate stub. Along came Bovineboy2008, placed a relink to Lee (not-the-editor-of Magellan). Which also caused a 2007 film of the same name to link to Lee Smith in the article L'est Films Group! Since there are even more films named Magellan, this page should be deleted completely, because any future article creations should be titled Magellan (2007 film), Magellan (2017 film), etc. I have written to both users here, and while Brinlong is inactive since February 3, Bovineboy2008 has agreed to the deletion." Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, or restore and draftify. A messy situation indeed. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as outlined above. Thanks onel5969, for faithfully keeping my comments about the delete request upon moving it here, although I feel you could have spared yourself all the work (like putting a notice on the talk page of LEE SMITH!) since this should not really be about the relink that is so obviously false. It is at best a discussion about whether the underlying abandoned article attempt warrants any salvaging. To me it clearly does not: Anyone that wants to create an article about the 2017 film Magellan would be well advised to start from scratch instead of sifting through the meager bits and pieces in the article history to see what belongs to Magellan and what belongs to Interstellar. And as outlined above, the name of that future article should be Magellan (2017 film). There is nothing worth saving, not even the name of the page, nor does the creator Brinlong show the necessary activity to reembark on a proper draft – he/she has made 11 edits in the last three years. Had the relink not hidden this mess from sight, the page would have been deleted three years ago. P.S.: I originally posted it as a delete request on WP:PROD following the advice of EurekaLott, who wrote here: "I would probably go with WP:PROD, because it would require the least effort, and because RFD participants sometimes object to using that process to delete pages that used to be articles." --Sprachraum (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for following up on this, Sprachraum. For the record, I suggested reverting the page back to an article before nominating it for proposed deletion. Redirects aren't eligible under WP:PROD. - Eureka Lott 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes EurekaLott, you did, and I'm sorry I skipped that part of your advice. It felt a bit silly to do that, since I'm asking people to look at the history of the article – whereupon they would immediately see that I had just deleted a relink! So I thought the people over at WP:PROD would easily be able to realize that it isn't really about the relink, but apparently not.
I really suggest a topic for your next admin-conference: There is too much bureaucracy set up around these processes, on to many pages, too confusing for newcomers, and stealing too much time even from experienced users. I really believe that the en-WP would benefit from learning what works on other language WPs, who handle this differently. Redirects are not cheap, if they actually involve people discussing that one should keep the double "of of" in an obscure template name of 12 words length! –as is happening below. The life time of all the people on these pages is not cheap. --Sprachraum (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. No use as an incorrect redirect and no real use as a draft since it's made of bits and pieces of other articles not related to this film. (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

20721 [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target. Might also refer to ZIP codes like at Lake Arbor, Maryland. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Enwiki has no mention of this number that is any different to any other number as a zip code, reference no, etc. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Film Editor (Dick Allen) [ edit ]

Request Deletion of the redirect page: Created back in 2013, by a newby who didn't know how to set internal links properly, this page should be deleted not only because as a title it goes against all the naming rules, but also because if you enter "Film editor" in the Wikipedia search box, this relink appears in the popdown preview as the second result. No other film editor in the entire Wikipedia is given such "prominence". And it is highly unlikely that there are any external links to it. Sprachraum (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It's more of a fault in the search engine rather than anything else that this redirect is given such a prominence, but in the meantime it's cluttering the search bar to a high degree nonetheless so should be deleted. J947messageedits 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't follow our article naming norm, which is that names go first, and occupation goes second, in parentheses. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

223-episode series [ edit ]

The Gumby franchise is not a 223 episode series, Neither the TV shows The Gumby Show nor Gumby Adventures. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete this. This redirect is also pretty ambiguous, and multiple series have 223 or more episodes. It wouldn't make sense to direct readers to any one of those series. Regards, SONIC678 06:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Implausible search term. (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an old old R from move; the article, which originally looked like this, stood less than an hour at this title. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete it’s a highly unlikely term that’s inaccurate on top of thst.-- (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Government Officials and Priesthood from the time of of Ramesses II Navigator [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 4#Template:Government Officials and Priesthood from the time of of Ramesses II Navigator

February 23 [ edit ]

Template:Arabic-international-para [ edit ]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @DePiep with the reason "unused, confusing, not a help" FASTILY 23:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Even the target template is unused. Am I missing something? -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Arabic-international [ edit ]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @DePiep with the reason "unused, confusing" FASTILY 23:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Even the target template is unused. Am I missing something? -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The template seems to be a completely redundant fork of Template:Script/Arabic. Template:Arabic-international seems to be just taking Arabic script and wrapping it in some span tags with defined fonts and formatting to make it render properly, which is exactly what Template:Script/Arabic also does. I'd be tempted to take it to TfD. (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
They even use the same choice of fonts, same font size and same font weight. (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, the target-templates, with content, deserve scrutinisation. Plan is to do this later on. -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

AB 1 [ edit ]

This is being done on behalf of Kokopelli7309. See Special:Diff/1005999192. –MJLTalk 20:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate (or create a dab page and point this at it). This could also be referring to a type of amplifier (Class-AB1 amplifier) two models of aeroplanes (Bernard AB 1 and Aichi AB-1) a UK postcode (AB postcode area) and maybe a ship (USS Kearsarge (BB-5), formerly Hull classification AB-1). (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambig per the above - I'm surprised it isn't one already tbh. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambig by retargeting to new disambiguation page AB1 (disambiguation), but I can't find mention of any "US bill" (banknote or legislative act) to which @Kokopelli7309: refers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Shhhnotsoloud: AB 1 stands for "assembly bill 1," (like in this example), and it can refer to a lot of different bills in state legislatures. Since we can't cover all of them, it may not be worth mentioning on the page, but I would still recommend to disambiguate like everyone else. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate I've heard of "assembly bill 1" but not of "AB1." I think that in this case there's no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, it looks like there is already a disambiguation page for AB1. We just need to add a redirect for AB 1, which I'm going to request right now. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Inquisitor (Warhammer 40,000) [ edit ]

There currently is no mention of inquisitors in the main warhmmer 40,000 article, and the obvious target for this redirect was deleted last year after an AfD nomination. There does however seem to be a tabletop game, video game, fan magazine and series of books which could be potential targets. Does anyone view one of these as a primary target or should it be disambiguted? (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak redirect to Warhammer 40,000: Inquisitor – Martyr. I'm not super familiar with Warhammer 40k, but page views suggest that this video game is the most prominent example of the suggested potential targets. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

MAGA Patriot Party [ edit ]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I redirected the page because apparently, numerous Trump supporters are trying to form a third party named the "MAGA Patriot Party" after Trump has left office. When I created the page, I believe that there was a mention in the article about the party at the time, although there appears to be none now. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
If you mean this mention, it had a lifespan of less than 20 minutes, and it didn't mention the "MAGA Patriot Party." It discussed Trump's hypothetical musings of forming something called a Patriot Party. The name had already been registered by someone else, and the Trump team promptly disavowed that Patriot Party, as well. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: what you you mean? this article states that numerous Trump supporters have launched third parties, and while they might not be exactly named “MAGA Patriot Party”, it’s still worth at least mentioning. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Politicsfan4: Anyone can file paperwork claiming that they're forming a new party. Trump quickly disavowed them ([15]. They haven't actually managed to form a party with state chapters and candidates. Wikipedia isn't the place to record everything that's briefly mentioned by some news outlets (WP:NOTNEWS).Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect to Make America Great Again#Use by Donald Trump. Seems more appropriate than the Donald Trump page since they use Trump's "MAGA" in the title and Trump has officially disavowed any affiliation with them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add something about the party to the Make America Great Again#Use by Donald Trump section, here are a couple of reliable sources: local Florida news source and Axios. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: There already is a sourced mention of the party in the last paragraph of that section, which is why I suggested retargeting there. (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I saw your suggestion and agreed that the redirection should target that section. The MAGA party mentioned there is a different one, 'though, the one Trump was contemplating and then abandoned. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Baron samedit [ edit ]

Given This is apparently the name of a sudo exploit, but it's not mentioned at the target. Delete per WP:R#DELETE #10 unless a duly sourced mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Baron Samedi. In French the "t" would be silent, making this a moderately plausible homophonous typo. Second choice: delete. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 21:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support redirecting redirect to Baron Samedi. Since a mention of the sudo exploit has already been added to Baron Samedi (and the exploit name itself is a reference to that guy) it would make more sense to have Baron Samedit redirect there. Additionally, this would also work for the use-case specified by Tamzin. Sohom Datta (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Three-sided record [ edit ]

This is not the only three-sided record. Second Winter and Big World had their fourth sides blank. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CRISIS [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Hammersmith, Derbyshire [ edit ]

Delete as confusing; started off as a 2008 Redirect, converted to a village description, then IP has edited (in 2013, deleting description/converting to a Redirect in this diff) stating it is a street, not a place per se (see Google maps search and Google Streetview with Hammersmith metal street name-plaque).

Hammersmith (disambiguation) has this redirect described from 2014 as ...a village in Derbyshire. Midland Railway – Butterley has piped links to [[Hammersmith, Derbyshire|Hammersmith]] and [[Hammersmith railway station|Hammersmith]] (station created as part of a steam railway tourist attraction) in consecutive sentences.

Confusing and unnecessary to have a redirect to a street name? Suggest deletion of Redirect, with Hammersmith railway station staying as it is a tangible place, of meaning to the heritage railway line. Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  • It is a settlement[16] not a street, it could perhaps have a separate article but otherwise the usual practice is to redirect to its parish and mention it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking at File:Hammersmith - - 1307521.jpg and photographer's description of what are asserted to be 'tied' accommodation, the only mention I've seen so far is at the local history group; being a very-recent Wordpress/WP:SPS non-RS, it's not really what WP wants, but if the assertions can be proven elsewhere then there should be some mention. Whether this is at Ripley or elsewhere is indeterminate, as Butterley seems just as vague as Hammersmith; I would be interested to learn just when this name was coined, historically. As a control I looked at Highoredish (Derbys) and Newton Town (Notts). I have a 120 OS map (probably 1970s) in the house with Ripley printed just off the left bottom corner in the margin, but no annotation for Hammersmith (insufficient space, really). rgds.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(identifier) wikidata soft redirects [ edit ]

The plain soft redirect template, i.e. {{soft redirect}}, is not used in the mainspace (WP:SOFTSIS). I heavily caution against retaining these soft redirects to Wikidata: and suggest deleting them along the lines of WP:NOTDIR. These seemingly do little for readers and might confuse or surprise them (the format of Wikidata may seem foreign to what they are expecting etc.). However, if these are deemed appropriate, then a new specialized soft redirect template is due to excise these occurrences of the plain soft redirect template from the mainspace ({{Wikidata redirect}} is a redirect category). I would be happy to handle that aspect if it is determined that these should be kept. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. These have numerous incoming links due to Module:Authority control; other redirects there target appropriate mainspace articles. I can't see any suitable target article for Find New Zealand Artists. Retarget PIC to New York Public Library consistent with Photographers' Identities Catalog. Retarget WQI (Wikidata Q identifier) to Wikidata. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I first saw AnomieBOT III placing {{soft redirect}} on WDQ (identifier) here; I assumed it was configured properly, and propagated that change to the 2 other #Rs listed above. I have no problem replacing {{soft redirect}} with #REDIRECT [[:d:Q43649390]], as originally intended prior to AnomieBOT III.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That won't actually redirect, which is why {{soft redirect}} exists in the first place. If {{soft redirect}} should not be used in some instance, feel free to replace it with the appropriate specialized template, or turn it into an appropriate stub article, or delete it. Anomie 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
      • @Anomie: The appropriate specialized soft redirect template does not exist at this time (i.e. there are no other soft redirects to Wikidata in the mainspace besides the ones listed here at this time), but I would be happy to create it should it be deemed that any of these should be retained as soft redirects (tried to say that in the nomination but it may not have came across clearly). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Support creation of of an appropriate template.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The reason these 3 #Rs exist is not against WP:NOTDIR - they are but 3 exceptions to the "<ID> (identifier)" Module:Authority control #R convention, whose #Rs were created by Matthiaspaul & myself.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf) 
  • The general purpose of these "(identifier) redirects" instead of direct links is to reduce the clutter at "What links here" and improve reverse lookup capabilities. They are used by citation templates, authority control templates, catalog lookup link templates, infoboxes and various other templates, and they should point to the corresponding Wikipedia page explaining the identifier. They should only be used in conjunction with identifiers, not for "normal" links to the target page.
Until recently, all these redirects actually resolved to Wikipedia pages, and this should definitely remain the default in order to not undermine the idea. In rare cases, where an identifier redirect needs to be created although we don't yet have a good target page in Wikipedia, I think, we can extend the idea and let it temporarily point to the corresponding Wikidata entry, but this should remain the exception.
"WDQ (identifier)" should be changed back to point to our Wikipedia article on Wikidata.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for further discussion of most recent comment.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Interstate 80 Business (California) [ edit ]

This is an ambiguous redirect. It could also mean the Truckee loop. It should be re-redirected to the California section of Business loops of Interstate 80. -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 17:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to where you claim this can also be redirected to? I have trouble finding any reliable info on a "Truckee Loop" which is also called (or contains) "Interstate 80 Business". Fram (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Fram:Interstate 80 Business (Truckee, California). Imzadi 1979  21:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Unbinilium-322 Dibromide: you didn't need to open a formal RfD just to repoint the redirect to resolve the situation. I'd just bolding make the suggested change to repoint it to Business routes of Interstate 80#California, but now we have to wait for this discussion to be resolved. Imzadi 1979  21:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, this could have just been done, as the new redirect target Business routes of Interstate 80#California includes both the old and the wanted target. If it then got opposed (because the old target is by far the more popular page, the new one hardly gets any views) an RfD could be opened. Fram (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

My hole [ edit ]

Apparently this was a minor news story [17], but without any mention at the target I don't see a reason for the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Funny, but not a useful redirect.LM2000 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary and useless redirect. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete just a joke, useless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete humorous story that lasted about a day.-- (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not useful.Less Unless (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Not useful. Wario-Man talk 04:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

5/25 [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to May 25 (WP:SNOW closure).

Tau Manta [ edit ]

Vehicle from the Warhammer 40,000 universe not mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia. If kept this would probably be better targeting T'au Empire but it's not mentioned there either. (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete it is known as a very expensive unit in the tabletop game. Otherwise, it's just one of the heavier units detailed in the lore. Anyways, I think the WH40k fandom wikis would be the better platform to discuss the unit than --Lenticel (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Techpriest Enginseer [ edit ]

Mechanic/priest/engineers from the warhammer 40,000 universe which are not mentioned anywhere in the target article. They have a few namedrops in other articles, but no substantive coverage that would be a good target in my opinion. These used to target Adeptus Mechanicus, which was deleted following a 2008 AfD nomination then were retargeted to Imperium of Man (Warhammer 40,000) which was converted into a redirect in 2018 following an AfD nomination (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. They are represented in the games and literature but usually as background/support characters. --Lenticel (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Jaq Draco [ edit ]

Non-notable character from the Warhammer 40,000 universe not mentioned in the target article or substantially anywhere in the encyclopedia. He has an entry on the dab page Draco which links to an article where his surname has a namedrop as the title of a book. (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ceramite [ edit ]

This currently targets the Warhammer 40,000 article as the name of a fictional material used for making power armor, however it is not mentioned anywhere in the target article. It has a short mention in Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000)#Equipment which might serve as a suitable target, but Creamite is also a real material used in the production of refactory linings [18] Not sure what the best use of this redirect is. (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Trollkore [ edit ]

Recreated after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollkore, no mention anywhere on Wikipedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing on the subject. I like the 2004 stripped-down AfD style though ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Slashbot [ edit ]

Not mentioned anywhere in relation to Slashdot. There is an unrelated list entry at List of villains in VR Troopers#Slashbot though, to which I propose this be retargeted. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

YouInsensitiveClod [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Karma whore [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. Might also refer to Reddit karma. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

AIMBot [ edit ]

Looking at the page history, "AIM" is an abbreviation of "AOL Instant Messenger". While there is a short mention of the messenger in the section Chatbot#Malicious use, to which this could be refined, "AIMBot" on its own is not mentioned at the target nor anywhere else and could cause unnecessary confusion with an aimbot. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrator Control Panel [ edit ]

No explanation anywhere at target; the only passing mention we have is at PHP-Nuke. Also potentially ambiguous as this term is not exclusive to internet fora: This might even refer to the Control Panel (Windows), particularly the Administrative Tools. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to the DAB page at Control panel, which includes both the operating system and web usage. (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Postwhore [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target or anywhere on Wikipedia, causes unnecessary confusion (cf. talk page: This is, I suppose, a derogatory term for the "Internet forum" term. I don't have the time to go through the WP:Article titles policy base, but it seems obvious to me that we are not allowing such redirects. If we make exceptions, please let me know. Nxavar (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)). Soft retarget to wikt:postwhore or delete. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You Talkin' To Me?: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama [ edit ]

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

Genius Labs [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target. An internet search returns quite a few search results related to a "teeth whitening" company as well as "cloud based software designed for business", but nothing related to blogging. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Trending topic [ edit ]

The current target now has a main article, Twitter trends; however, I'm not sure how unambiguous this term is. Creating the corresponding titles with a "(Twitter)" disambiguator as redirects there and retargeting these to Trend might be a better option. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, nothing at Trend suggest that it should go there. (CC)Tbhotch 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do agree with the nominator that the current topic is suboptimal, while a lot of results are related to twitter there are other websites that show up regularly when you search for this phrase (e.g. Google Trends, Weibo, Facebook ...). There's also the Trend analysis article, which might be a suitable place to shove a section related to social media trends? Not sure. (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POVFIGHTER [ edit ]

A strong consensus has been reached at an RfC (permalink) to remove the section of WP:TE to which this formerly pointed. As such, this shortcut serves no purpose, and is in fact confusing, and thus it should be deleted. Crossroads -talk- 05:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete It should have been deleted as part of the discussion. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. No longer serves any useful purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Technical delete, could be recreated if the previous content was moved to an essay or reworked. —PaleoNeonate – 07:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • delete since currently has no purpose --Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I-15 [ edit ]

KeepClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

February 22 [ edit ]

George Lamson Jr. [ edit ]

Not mentioned in the target article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. He was the only survivor of the crash, which is why his name targets this page, but as he isn't mentioned there it's not helpful. A cursory search shows quite a few articles about him (he apparently works with survivors of other air crashes) so it's not implausible that he is notable enough for an article but I haven't looked in detail. The entry at the George Lamson Jr. dab page should not be removed but adjusted to include a link to the crash article directly as well as the resulting red link after this is deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete exactly per Thryduulf. The dab page is George Lamson. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Season 2 (2018) [ edit ]

Too ambiguous, not a likely search term. While season 2 of "Bigg Boss" did premiere in 2018, "Bigg Boss" is not the only series in which season 2 premiered in that year. For example, season 2 of "13 Reasons Why" also premiered in 2018. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete ridiculously ambiguous. A google search has basically every result relate to something different, ranging from TV shows to fortnite. (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It may have been primarily what people were searching for some time in 2018, but even though that year's over, it can refer to anything and the "primary topic" in that regard keeps changing, so why do we need redirects like that? Regards, SONIC678 23:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It's left over from a page move. The article was created at this title for some reason (typo perhaps) then moved to a more sensible name 2 minutes later. I doubt this was the primary meaning of the phrase even in 2018. (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and the previous editors. Too ambiguous. Less Unless (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Zuid (Middelburg) [ edit ]

This redirect is the result of a very short-lived article in 2007 about Zuid (South), the southern part of the city of Middelburg, which was merged with Middelburg for lack of notability. However, the Middelburg article doesn't have a section on Zuid anymore and in fact doesn't even mention it (and neither should it, there's nothing to note about the neighbourhood whatsoever), so the redirect serves no purpose anymore and should be deleted. Lennart97 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Rugmark [ edit ]

KeepClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Appeal to Reason (band) [ edit ]

Unlikely to be of any reasonable use. Made by accident from a botched page move. No notable band exists with this name, nor does any notable subject have involvement in such a group, that I'm aware of. (If there is, I would like it retargeted there.) dannymusiceditor oops 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: no such band exists (at least, not a notable one), and even if they did, they have nothing to do with this album, so it is unlikely that anyone would use the search term to look for this album or the band who made it, and the redirect serves no purpose. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Peg Bowen [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target. The only real mention on Wikipedia is twice at List of Road to Avonlea episodes. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. The text of The Story Girl from the link at External links shows she's a character, hence her appearance later in Road to Avonlea. Perhaps an editor who's familiar with the book could add a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

BIXie [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • CommentWikt:bixie#Etymology 2 explains the connection, but there is no content about it on Wikipedia I can find. I'm unsure about suggesting a soft redirect though as I can't immediately find any uses of this capitalisation. The originating forum was BIX (Byte Information Exchange) but the emoticons are at least most commonly "bixie" (Google's lack of case sensitivity means I cannot say this is/was never used, just that if it is/was it is less common than standard capitalisation). Bixie correctly exists as a redirect to the completely unrelated Pixiu, which is the primary topic, so if content were to be added about the emoticons then it would need to take disambiguation or more likely be a hatnote (I suspect there are reliable sources sufficient for a mention somewhere but not for a whole article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Regressive conservatism [ edit ]

Procedural nomination on behalf of Manabimasu (see here). Original reason was:

No reliable sources on the namespace article name.

~ Amory(utc) 22:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to reactionary, I believe that's what's meant. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Twitterati [ edit ]

Seems to be a neologism, not further explained at the target. It is mentioned at Generation Z#Arts and culture, so retargeting there might be an option. Alternatively Wiktionary redirect to wikt:Twitterati or delete. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment as creator, I can only imagine that I was fixing a red link at the time. It certainly is a neologism, but is well used and discussed in numerous scholarly papers [19] as well as books and news. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP 150 views per year, seems to be useful. Twitter is an appropriate target. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft retarget to the Wiktionary entry, where the word is defined. I don't know if it's possible without breaking the soft redirect template but a see also link to twitter would also go nicely on the page. (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and additionally add an explanation of the term somewhere in the target article. enjoyer|talk 05:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Gnu ld [ edit ]

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

LoL: Dominion [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target anymore. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: No opinion at the moment, but I also found League of Legends:Dominion, which I'm adding here. Regards, SONIC678 18:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dominion is a dead game mode that was never independently notably; I highly, highly doubt that anyone was ever finding the page through these redirects. I suspect there are a lot of silly redirects leading to the game like this. It isn't fulfilling its main job of getting unfamiliar readers to where they need to be, and Dominion has never been referred to as "League of Legends: Dominion". — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for a full 7 days for consideration of the redirects added a few days into this discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Biopact [ edit ]

Not mentioned at target. All the other search results are passing mentions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Witch Lesbians [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#Witch Lesbians

SMKC [ edit ]

DisambiguateClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Swathi Venkatesh [ edit ]

Absolutely nothing in the article supports the name, a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. The redirect comes from an undiscussed move which was later reverted. Ab207 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Eladio Carrión [ edit ]

Although Eladio Carrión has collaborated with Bad Bunny, Eladio Carrión is an individual singer and they collabed only once, so they are not associated singers, the redirect makes me kinda confused. BrandNewJimZhang(talk) 13:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. I'm probably redirecting the focus here, but there are plenty of editors on Wikipedia still redirecting the names of artists to articles on others. If this were really such a problem, there'd be some kind of directive not to do this, or at the very least there should be to try to curb it. There are thousands more redirects like this, and I feel like nominations like this selectively target redirects in some misguided attempt to address a problem as if this redirect were one of only very few when that's absolutely not the case. It can't be stopped through one nomination alone, so if this is an issue, it needs to be more widely addressed and individual, piecemeal nominations like this should stop until there is an explicit directive to not make redirects in this fashion. Ss112 01:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You're right, lots of editors create redirects like this. But this should be an important issue to work on, redirects like these are really confusing. -- BrandNewJimZhang(talk) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to have been a one off collaboration on a song with no substantial history between the artists. I can't see what resulted in the decision to target this discography in particular, a search shows they've collaborated with a load of artists including some multiple times, e.g. they were involved in 3 singles with Myke Towers. They're not mentioned anywhere in the article prose so it's not going to be immediately obvious to readers why they've ended up here. In this instance I think the search results do a much better job of finding various songs they've worked on. (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    You can't see what resulted in the decision to target the redirect to "this discography in particular"...because the artists collaborated and at that time, I believed it was a valid search term to point there because it was one of the only, if not at that time, the only place it was mentioned on Wikipedia. A term does not need to be mentioned all over an article or even repeatedly for it to be valid. Judging by your frequency here at RfD, I'm sure you don't see users repeatedly taking issue with how some songs on albums are only mentioned once on those album articles, in the track listing, and nominating those song redirects for deletion. It's really not that hard to figure out why I made it. Ss112 04:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    The difference is that a song being released on an album is a fixed fact that cannot be retroactively changed and isn't going to become outdated in a couple of years. Short of the song becoming notable enough for it's own article or something very unusual happening (like a cover version becoming more well known than the original) a redirect from a song to an album is going to be continuously useful. The same is not true of redirecting artists to a collaboration. This may have been his main appearance in the encyclopaedia when you made the redirect but now 2 years later that is no longer the case, and he appears in all sorts of places which contain just as much content as the current target (Myke Towers, Súper Sangre Joven, Cazzu, Lunay, Khea, Bryant Myers, ...) and pointing readers to this one specific collaboration is not helpful as there is a huge amount of songs and relevant content that they will miss. (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    A collaboration is also a fixed fact and should remain at a discography if it is properly sourced as a single. Having more collaborations and mentions in places on the encyclopedia doesn't change that. Ss112 11:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    I never said it should be removed from the discography. The thing that should be deleted is the redirect, because it is no longer true that his collaboration with Bad Bunny is his only song mentioned on the encyclopaedia. (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    And I never said you wrote that it should be removed from the discography. I also never said it was ever his only collaboration mentioned on the encyclopedia, merely suggested at the time I created it perhaps it was. A topic being mentioned by name on multiple articles has never been a barrier to making a redirect for it pointing it to only one place—this happens for songs originally from individual studio albums, as you well know. This reply thread really no longer has a point. Ss112 11:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    I do apologise, when you said "A collaboration is also a fixed fact and should remain at a discography if it is properly sourced as a single." I misunderstood and thought you were talking about the entry at the discography, rather than the redirect. "A topic being mentioned by name on multiple articles has never been a barrier to making a redirect for it pointing it to only one place" - normally when redirects with multiple valid potential targets are brought here they're either disambiguated or deleted to allow uninhibited search results, unless there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title. For the majority of songs the primary topic is the original recording, but searching the internet for "Eladio Carrión" does not suggest to me that the primary thing he's known for is his collaboration with Big Bunny, basically every result is for a different song. (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    I was talking about the entry at the discography. I have addressed both that and the redirect itself at different times. I don't see how one could interpret "A collaboration is also a fixed fact and should remain at a discography if it is properly sourced as a single" as anything other than specifically referring to the entry at the discography and not the redirect. This is just clarifying at this point. As I said, I don't see the point in continuing this particular line of replies. Ss112 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirects such as this one, based on a single collaboration, are not useful in any way and should be deleted, no matter how many of them there are. The keep vote above does not provide an explanation for why this redirect should be kept other than that other stuff exists. Lennart97 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Lennart97: Even after I acknowledged that I was redirecting the focus of my !vote to the fact that plenty of these things exist, you still felt the need to indirectly reply to me and trot out the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS argument and link. Basically every user knows that exists with how often users like yourself quote it at them; we don't need to repeat it in every circumstance as if by the virtue of acknowledging the existence of a damn essay, read: not a policy or guideline, that that invalidates any argument to the contrary. It doesn't. You are blatantly ignoring my point that individual nominations like this, where users can blather on about how "this was one collaboration, this isn't useful" so should be deleted, do not address what is evidently a larger issue of many experienced editors doing this. I'm not the first to do it—nor am I the most prolific—and I certainly will not be the last. Maybe if you have such an issue with redirects like this, as you obviously do because you !voted to delete, you should aim to at least help have it explicitly written in a content guideline (not one of those charming essays) that redirects such as this are not useful or helpful. That point is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; it's saying let's have this written down somewhere so we can curb it happening. Instead, no, you obviously think voting to delete my one redirect is achieving anything. It won't—it will keep happening until we can tell said users "hey, don't do this per WP:ONEARTISTMENTION" or some such—so good going. Ss112 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Ss112: I do believe "voting to delete your one redirect" is achieving something: it's getting rid of a redirect which is not useful. That's what RfD is for. Voting in favour of deleting your redirect, or nominating your redirect, is not "misguided" and certainly not a personal attack or insult, but your aggressive tone in your reply above suggests you are taking this personally. Please don't. The thing is, I'm not aware of any large endemic problem of editors creating redirects like these, and I'm perfectly happy with merely voting to delete one that I see here at RfD. Voting does not come with any further obligations. You are the one who keeps insisting this is a big issue that needs a specific policy written; so write it yourself. That is certainly a more productive use of your time than getting so defensive about this one redirect that happens to have been created by you. Lennart97 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Lennart97: Your reply shows you are still misconstruing or just plain not reading what I'm saying. Nowhere have I said I have an issue with this practice. You very well know I didn't nominate my own redirect. My issue here is with the editors who nominate these from time to time or vote to delete them and state quite strongly "these kinds of redirects shouldn't be made", which confirms you do indeed know these types of redirects exist. These editors (including yourself) should be the ones tackling the larger problem by bringing it up elsewhere, yet no attempt to ever do more than vote eventuates, which is either laziness or wilful ignorance. Or perhaps it's both, as I've just made you aware of the larger problem by saying music editors are still doing this exact thing, yet you still reply that you're not aware of any larger problem. I could point you to plenty of examples, yet nothing would come of those either because then the reply is always "I don't have to do anything more". I'm really tired of this "it's not my responsibility" argument editors bring out in cases like this. Same thing happens at AfD, where editors say "sources that prove this article's notability are out there, but I don't have to add them to the article!" Yet all these people like yourself can be bothered to reply and defend your point of view to anybody who takes issue with what you said, as I'm sure you'll continue to do right after this, but yet now you accuse only me of being defensive. As are you, of your own point of view; don't accuse others of what you're doing yourself. Make it make sense. A more productive use of your time would be bringing this up elsewhere now that you've been made aware of a larger problem. But do continue to remain defensive about your delete vote and defend what is essentially laziness. Ss112 11:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Ss112: I'm not going to waste more of my time by responding to personal attacks and incivility, so this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. Lennart97 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    Best thing I've read in this thread thus far. If you can't confront the root "problem" there's no real need to reply to me. Ss112 13:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Bhavya Lal [ edit ]

The redirect needs fixing as no mention of Bhavya Lal occurs at the redirect target. If they are an appointment of Biden, then they should be mentioned with a source; if not, then the redirect is to the wrong article or should be deleted. N2e (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Have found that this person, Bhavya Lal, has been apparently been appointed by the Biden administration as the Acting [NASA]] Administrator. Unclear why that information is not in the article the redirect points to, but as soon as that gets cleared up, this RfD will be able to be closed. N2e (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverse Zoonosis/Zooanthroponosis/Anthroponosis [ edit ]

This is a very implausible redirect, but cannot be deleted by CSD R3, as it was created as a result of a page move. Techie3 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - It was created when I moved the page to a more plausible title. I should have deleted it then. My mistake. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I can hardly imagine anyone using this type of search query. Also per redirect creator. Less Unless (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as very implausible to be used. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Test Wikipedia [ edit ]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Test Wikipedia resulted in a retarget; however, the topic is not mentioned at the target anymore nor anywhere else in mainspace. Since there is also no standalone page about this in other namespaces, I suggest deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Not for Sale (Michael Combs song) [ edit ]

This redirect points to a disambiguation page. There is no article for Michael Combs and no logical place to redirect this obscure song by an obscure artist. No assistance to navigation whatsoever. Richhoncho (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Michael Combs is not notable per Wiki guidelines, therefore a song of his (not even in the top 10 most listened) is not notable either. There's no need in this redirect. Less Unless (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Pour les nuls [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

NannyMUD [ edit ]

Not mentioned in source and has no substantive reason to be. czar 07:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete NannyMUD seems to be a MUD but seems to be too obscure to be mentioned or linked to the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Wong Goes West [ edit ]

Split or bespoke decisionsClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close

February 21 [ edit ]

Heat emission [ edit ]

Seems to also refer to Thermal radiation and Heat transfer, not sure how the best way to handle this is - I'm not the most familiar with science. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak Retarget to Heat transfer. While in the strict scientific sense of the word this should probably target Thermal radiation as emission is a radiative process this phrase also has significant use colloquially as a generic term for heat loss. You'll find a lot of results and papers on "Heat emission from pipelines" and "Heat emission from radiators" for example, even though they are predominantly convective processes. I would like to state that this is a weak retarget because I can see the argument for targeting to Thermal radiation, but both the proposed targets are much better than where it currently points. (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambig my first thought was thermal radiation, but heat transfer is about equally possible and the current target is not incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Thryduulf. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Goin' Back to the Bridge [ edit ]

Not mentioned at the target or elsewhere on WP. No assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Scoutmaster Robbie [ edit ]

This is yet another disguise used by Robbie Rotten in "Lazy Scouts," even though it's called "Scotty the Scoutmaster." It's kinda ambiguous as well, so maybe delete it, or if we keep it, retarget it to List of LazyTown episodes#ep10. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Scotty the Scoutmaster. Regards, SONIC678 17:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Suffragists [ edit ]

Should Suffragist and Suffragists be made disambiguation pages? They both link to different articles, and both terms could be used (more widely) to refer to Women's suffrage, or (more specifically) to the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (but absolutely not the suffragettes). Bangalamania (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate: per nom. Terms could be easily confused with the two different topics. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: I'm not an expert on disambiguation, so maybe this question is obvious, but I don't want to assume, so I will ask. I presume the plan is to make one disambiguation page that will address all three terms, or would each term have a disambiguation page? IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm also no expert on disambiguation, but yes: I plan to have "Suffragist" as the main disambig page (with "Suffragists" redirecting there) and include Women's suffrage and the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies on there I wasn't sure if I should include the "Women's suffrage in [country]" pages on there too. –Bangalamania (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: It would be helpful to have one main page for Wiki readers on the definition of 'suffragist' compared to the more militant suffragettes.Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment:Suffragist (singular) was not tagged, I've just corrected that. A draft of the disambiguation page would also be useful.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate by using a hatnote. Retarget both to Suffrage (which has a section on Women's suffrage) and put a hatnote there {{redirect|Suffragist|a particular use|National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Kekekekeke [ edit ]

Explained better at LOL#Related. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Rottenella [ edit ]

This is a one-time character from "Dancing Duel," who used to have an article for over a day in January 2010 before that was turned into a redirect. She wasn't mentioned at the target during that time, so I don't really know if we should keep this lying around. However, if it's kept, the most suitable target I can think of would be List of LazyTown episodes#ep32, where she's mentioned, though not by name. Regards, SONIC678 07:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

LazyTown Mayors [ edit ]

Now this is just misleading. The redirect implies there were multiple mayor characters in LazyTown, but there is only one. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  • This used to be article content. That article content says that there were multiple mayors (if only for a short time). J947messageedits 00:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Misleading indeed. No source was ever added to confirm that multiple mayors did in fact exist. CycloneYoristalk! 01:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Selena (American pop singer) [ edit ]

Selena Gomez is not known mononymously, so it is not plausible for someone to search for her in this fashion, especially with double or triple disambiguation. --Tavix (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak retargetSelena (American pop singer) to Selena, who mononymously went by that name, even though I'm not 100% sure about this course of action, but definitely delete the other two per nom as implausible search terms. Regards, SONIC678 22:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Ms Gomez is not known mononymously and while Selena was a mononymous American singer she was not a pop singer and was not born in 1992. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom and Thryduulf. Selena Gomez is not known mononymously and these redirects are simply misleading and unnecessary. CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Anal people [ edit ]

The page Anal person redirects to Anal retentiveness, but the plural form redirects to this completely different article. Keep or retarget? Colgatepony234 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget. Point both to Anal retentiveness, with a hatnote to the tribe. BD2412T 15:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Anal (disambiguation). The proposed hatnote on Anal retentiveness seems inappropriate. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The "Naga" of "Anāl Naga" is a natural disambiguator, as the ethnic group's name is just "Anal". The word "people" is the most common disambiguator for titles of articles about ethnic groups and even when an article would use a different title, the corresponding redirect with "people" will invariably exist. The navigation path from the redirect Anal people to the article about the Anāl people is therefore common and expected, all the more so given it starts at what was the title of the article between 2011 and 2018. The proposed navigation from Anal people to Anal retentiveness, on the other hand, is neither common nor expected. As far as I can see, redirects of the form X person for character traits are very rare, and X people completely almost non-existent. There's no Kind people redirecting to Kindness, Impulsive people to Impulsiveness, or Neurotic people to Neuroticism. – Uanfala (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I realise that redirects of the form X person for character traits are just as rare and almost as unexpected. I created Anal person in 2019, but would be happy with its deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Anal (disambiguation) Anal. The term can potentially refer to several disparate topics that are disambiguated there, so this seems like the most appropriate option to get searchers to where they want to go. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Right, fixed that. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relist to add Anal person, since the discussion concerns both redirects.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Onlyinclude [ edit ]

Delete no evidence this term has any connection to the target, or even exists. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm assuming this was meant to refer to {{Onlyinclude}}. I'm not aware of other uses of the term. Includeonly and Noinclude are also redirects targeting Inclusion. They all could be retargeted to Transclusion, but there's no discussion of MediaWiki there. The best target I can find is MediaWiki#Templates, and that's not a particularly good option. - Eureka Lott 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a relatively obscure piece of wikimarkup that is not mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia. The only hits I get in search results are from broken templates. Unless something like Wiki Markup is expanded into a full article I can't see a good target for this. (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Alice Wiegand [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Stuart West (Wikimedia) [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jugend [ edit ]

This has redirected to Jugend (magazine) for 10 years. Recently changed to redirect to Youth as a German to English redirect. I propose moving the magazine to the title since there is no other article and no need for disambiguation. No need for a word translation redirect either. MB 04:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • @MB: if what you are proposing is to move the magazine article, then you want RM not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I am proposing a move but that can be done without discussion if the redirect is deleted. I thought the more significant issue was should Jugend redirect to Youth. MB 15:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree.Jugend would in English not refer to "youth" - that's just awkward. In much of continental Europe, Jugend aka. Jugendstil is actually a synonym for art nouveau. The name of this school of arts actually originates from Jugend (magazine), so it's a very apt article name. --hydrox (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    • On reading more of the comments, especially's below - yes it would be good to disambiguate this. There are just too many meanings, and the hatnote on the Jugend (magazine) article would become unwieldy. --hydrox (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Disambiguate. Searching around shows there are a few alternate usages of the word, in addition to Jugend (magazine), e.g. The art style, an alternate name for an undercut hairstyle, A 1922 silent film and a form of Fraktur typeface. (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, I was the one that redirected it to the German word for "Youth" while also putting a translation rcat. A lot of articles start with "Jugend", it should not just be focused to the magazine. PyroFloe (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate as there are enough other entries besides the magazine. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 23:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There is nothing to disambiguate per WP:PTM. MB 04:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if we don't disambiguate, just redirecting it to a magazine article with only a few that are interested about the topic (i.e. Architects etc.) is not really a great idea. I say either stick with the current redirect to "Youth" as a translation or disambiguate it. PyroFloe (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Misspellings of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious [ edit ]

KeepClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural keep

Nikolaus von Wacken [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Adsf [ edit ]

Split or bespoke decisionsClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to the disambiguation page at ADSF.

Boah [ edit ]

There is also a tribe with this name mentioned at Barrobo District. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Barrobo District: per nom - redirect most likely created in the first place as a typo. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete (or second preference Keep). Barely mentioned at Barrobo District, and that mention is unreferenced. I was unable to find any evidence of mention of this tribe online (except mirrors). Potentially it was a locality ("Tribal area of Boah"), however. In any case, Barrobo District is likely to disappoint or confuse anyone who lands there after searching "Boah". A7V2 (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per A7V2. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

February 20 [ edit ]

Thrall-Noldorin [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Holy shit, something really fucked up happened [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Talcum X [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted by User:Bishonen.

Ôzaru [ edit ]

This has nothing to do with Dragon Ball. (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. This might not be the best target—it is mentioned at several Dragon Ball articles—but the nominator clearly has not done their research. Oozaru is the Japanese name for the Great Ape that Saiyans, including Goku, in Dragon Ball can transform into. Ô is just an alternate way of representing a long vowel (the "oo" in "Oozaru") in Japanese; Ō is more commonly used instead. Ss112 07:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete it and all the other iterations (Oozaru, Ozaru, Golden Oozaru). It is mentioned in several articles but there is no coverage of this specific topic, which has been the status quo for about 11 years. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Goku as mentioned there, and add a hatnote. Keeping it with Dragon Ball franchise article is also okay but may need an {{R without mention}} AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xezbeth. Search results will have to do unless/until we can explain the term in a logical place. I'm not familiar with the franchise, but it sounds like AngusWOOF's suggestion would be like redirecting "lightsaber" to "Luke Skywalker". --BDD (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: I'm not a fan of third relists, but the other redirects Xezbeth mentioned ought to be added to this discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • CommentOozaruwas a 22kb article before being redirected in 2010. If the concern is a lack of coverage, (some of) this content could be restored in some form. --Tavix (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect to Dragon Ball and oppose deletion of all other related terms. The nominator is incorrect about their assertion that it has nothing to do with Dragon Ball. The live action film Dragonball Evolution, though much aligned and deviates from the source material, has a character which is specifically named Ōzaru.Tavix is correct, this content could be expanded summary style if there is lack of coverage as the information is certainly verifiable. Haleth (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Trumparoo [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Indigenous American [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Divinium [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Divinium

Zyz, Italy [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Zyz, Italy

Drug ring [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Office under the United States [ edit ]

KeepClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Officer under the United States [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Officer under the United States

Llanfairpwllgwyngllgogerychwyrndrobwllynyngofod [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sususs Amongus [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3.

Public organization [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Brutality-killing [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikilabs [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ciley Myrus [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 27#Ciley Myrus

Wikimedia Toolserver [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Matt Halprin [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 27#Matt Halprin

Arne Klempert [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Astropath [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Uriel Ventris [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Navis Nobilite [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Void shields [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

State farm [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#State farm

S. Taylor (cricketer) [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency

Fordmil Meansbad [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Annam Tower [ edit ]

While Annam was an old name of Vietnam, there is no such thing as Annam Tower. This should be deleted. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Colonial exhibition. There was a "Annam Tower" in the 1906 exhibition in France, but we don't have an article on that specific event yet, so retarget to the list article where it's pictured. (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Great point! Marseille colonial exhibition (1906) could be good target too if this article is created. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be fine if there is any source calls Báo Thiên Tower "Annam Tower" or "Tháp An Nam". Otherwise, we couldn't be sure. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete As far as I can tell, the tower depicted at File:Expo coloniale 1906.jpg is not actually called "Annam Tower". The French description says "la tour de l'Annam" – it isn't capitalized, implying it's just a generic Annam tower, not a specific tower called "Annam Tower". References to an "Annam Tower" are probably a result of WP:CITOGENESIS; all mentions of the tower that I've found on Google come from the Wikipedia redirect or from the description of the aforementioned image on Commons, meaning that no one will come to Wikipedia looking for an article on "Annam Tower". The redirect should be deleted, even if an article on the Marseille colonial exhibition is created. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I have now changed the file's description on Commons to say "Annam tower" instead of "Annam Tower", in line with the original French description. I also want add that the redirect should not be retargeted to Four_Great_Treasures_of_Annam#Bao_Thien_Tower, as proposed by PamD, unless a source can be found where the Bao Thien Tower is referred to as the Annam Tower. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per IP. French does not usually capitalise generic parts of proper names, and no inference can be drawn from failure to do so. La Tour d'Annam would look weird. To pick a really obvious example, la tour Eiffel in French WP. Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but this still doesn't establish the notability of the Annam tower. It was just one of many exhibits at this colonial exhibition (see for example the Cambodian pavilion and the Laos pavilion mentioned at fr:Exposition coloniale de Marseille (1906)). These exhibits are not notable enough even for a redirect. They are highly implausible search terms. It would be like having redirects for every booth and every event at a trade fair. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

J. Barker [ edit ]

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Does not seem to have a mention on Wikipedia. Delete to encourage article creation, unless an appropriate target can be found. Per the backlinks, this also seems to be ambiguous with a painter. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete There's no use of a redirect to a category.Less Unless (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Barker (surname)#D–K, where there are five J. Barkers mentioned, plus four disambiguation pages with many more. Although none of them seem to be cricketers, this is still better than redirecting to a category where there's just a circular link. Then again, there may or may not be a primary topic for that term... Regards, SONIC678 05:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget or separately disambiguate. It would be particularly useful to have a separate disambiguation page at this title if there are multiple people primarily known as "J. Barker", or if there are people whose given name would abbreviate to "J. Barker" but who go by a middle name or otherwise might not show up at Barker (surname) as starting with a J. BD2412 T 16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Omegalul [ edit ]

KeepClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

February 19 [ edit ]

Buttons for Eyes [ edit ]

DeleteClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Buttons for Eyes (film) [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 27#Buttons for Eyes (film)

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962) [ edit ]

KeepClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Lindi Cistia Prabha [ edit ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 27#Lindi Cistia Prabha

Quitter (social network) [ edit ]

Not mentioned in the target or any other article, with the exception of citations. Having raised this at the target's talk page in December, there doesn't seem to be any interest in adding a mention to the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Quitter should be mentioned in the article but that is no reason to delete the redirect in the meantime. The situation about all the different versions of GNU Social is pretty complicated, messy, and not-well-documented in RS, so it's understandable that adding a mention wouldn't be the easiest. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sky High Marketing Corporation [ edit ]

Seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10, my guess is that most readers searching for this term would not be satisfied with the information at the target. Deleting to allow for internal search results and to encourage article creation seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Voting in broward county [ edit ]

RetargetClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Electrical college [ edit ]

No consensusClosed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Wikipedia:Notability (redirects) [ edit ]

Is this redirect notable? JsfasdF252 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Is this a joke nomination? J947messageedits 02:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I asked this question for a few reasons:
      • The nomination refers to the notability of this redirect, when that is not an established term.
      • The nominator created the redirect.
      • The nominator re-enabled the redirect to still work after it was nominated for deletion.
    • So JsfasdF252, I'm confused. J947messageedits 21:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability isn't used as a factor in determining whether redirects should be kept or deleted, and the concept of Notability isn't mentioned at all in the target section. This does get some page views, I assume because it was added to Template:Notability guide with thousands of transclusions, but there's no policy I could find on what "Notability of redirects" actually means. (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the only relevant mention I can find is in the lead of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes - "But there are significant differences between AfD and RfD, chiefly that AfD debates are often focused on whether the topic is notable, whereas there is no standard or requirement for notability of redirects.", but I'm not sure that is a great target as while notability is not directly relevant to redirects, the notability of the target and/or possible future targets can be relevant. I think there is probably scope for something explaining this, but I'm not sure where would be best for it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: I think that what you're talking about (and I apologise if I misunderstood) is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, i.e. that ambiguous redirects should target the most notable topic. I don't think that's really notability of redirects though, if I came across "notability (redirects)" I'd expect to end up somewhere discussing inclusion criteria for redirects, e.g. minimum usage in reliable sources. (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • PRIMARYTOPIC is one aspect, although not the main one I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of WP:REDLINK, where the target being notable or not notable will influence whether a redirect is seen as desirable, although that is also not the only one. You are correct that these are not about the notability of the redirect but are cases where notability and redirects intersect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes, which speaks to the topic, though I share J947's confusion at the situation. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, I share J947's confusion as well, but evaluating the redirect on its own terms despite that, I don't see an appropriate target given that we notability is not a standard by which redirects are evaluated, and the retarget suggestion proposed by BDD is likely to further confuse anyone under the impression that notability applies to redirects. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    FWIW this discussion reminded me of Andorran Navy (RfD), where we also retargeted a term to a place that says "it doesn't exist". Whether this is more or less desirable outside of mainspace, I leave to others to judge. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

British variant [ edit ]

Can refer to Variant of Concern 202012/01. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Variant of Concern 202012/01, in my searches every result in the first 5 pages was related to the coronavirus strain, so at the moment it is the clear primary meaning of the phrase. (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. The long-term meaning of a language variant will persist beyond the current pandemic, as will the existence of any species variants or other things that may vary in a British way. BD2412T 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambig per BD2412. Outside of the virus and language uses I'm seeing primarily hits related to military medals/military hardware and pre-Roman culture. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Variant of Concern 202012/01; don't disambiguate. This redirect had 15 hits in all of 2020, versus 41 in the past month when the U.K. COVID variant has been in the news. It was not likely useful as a redirect to British English (which includes the word "variant" zero times) but is pretty clearly a useful search term for the virus. As for other things that might be British variants of things: disambiguation pages aren't for search results, we have a search engine for that. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTNEWS. I think it's bad policy to retarget redirects to the subject "in the news" at the moment. BD2412T 18:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I usually would agree with you and I originally wrote basically that same thing, but then I looked at the pageviews. Nobody has ever really used this as a search term for British English or for anything else, suggesting it's not useful as a redirect to any of those other topics. But plenty have used it to look for information on the virus mutation, which suggests it's a primary topic for this search term. If it turns out to be a blip because the virus is in the news right now, it doesn't really matter since the redirect wasn't really being used otherwise. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per BD2412. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Too vague to make anything a primary topic. Nardog (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate now as British variant (a redirect) may refer to :
Further suggestions would be helpful -- Rfassbind– talk 16:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Variant of Concern 202012/01. I did a search of "British variant" in books only, which misses anything COVID related and saw the term used for a variety of things from language/spelling, versions of aircraft, economic theory, Christian values, "British variant of psychedelia", and so on. If this discussion was occurring last year, I would say delete as too vague (besides in the hatnote, variant isn't even mentioned in British English). Now, the COVID article is clearly what the vast majority of readers would be looking for. MB 03:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: No participation after the first relist. There is agreement that the Variant of Concern is at least one of the likely meanings and the current redirect is not appropriate.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Well there are some less important things that arise in a WP search, such as Variant (magazine), Oh_Hell#British_variant, British Chess Variants Society, Ikara_(missile)#British_variant_differences, etc. but these are more of a stretch for reference to a dab page. Perhaps we can start with hatnotes between the language topic and the virus topic, regardless of which target is chosen here. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - The long term meaning is the British languag