Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (WP:RFD)

=== March 29 ===   ==== First President of the United States ==== First President of the United States → George Washington  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Propose retarget to Presidency of George Washington. Reason: while readers might be interested in George Washington, I think the title is more related to his presidency. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== PRussian invasion of Ukraine ==== PRussian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This redirect is misleading, as Prussian is a redirect to Prussia which itself was involved in historic conflicts with political entities in the Ukraine. Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  Whilst this might be a typo, yes it seems odd. I agree this needs deleting. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Implausible typo, completely changes the meaning. Unless there's a relevant diambig it could direct to instead that involves conflicts between Prussia and Ukrainian entities. — Czello 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: The meaning is different when referring to Prussian vs Russia. The capitalization would of "PR" would also make it unnecessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: I suggested R3 on the article's talk page to save editor time, but since we're here now, let's just handle it here. There is the obvious issue that Prussia is a historical entity and thus should not be confused with Russia. There is further the implausibility of Prussia arising as a simple typo in place of Russia as the r key and the p key are on opposite ends of the qwerty keyboard layout. I suppose now's my chance to say that we don't need to create a whole qwertyuiop's worth of redirects to address every possible typo. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Keep as creator. There is no article called "Prussian invasion of Ukraine". It is a plausible typo of someone accidently hitting the p key. With an article with a total 50 million views (including redirects), probably hundreds have made this typo. Also, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. I doubt anyone who types PRussian invasion of Ukraine by accident means to go anywhere but the Russian Invasion of Ukraine page. @Hey man im josh @Mvqr @Czello @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Is it really that plausible given the positions of the keys on the keyboard? Should we have "ERussian invasion of Ukraine" as well if we're basing it strictly on keys accidently being hit? Even if it were, I'd still vote delete based on the capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)Why is the typo plausible (when the P and R keys are not near each other on the keyboard)? Why not have a LRussian Invasion of Ukraine, or ORussian Invasion of Ukraine, or MRussian Invasion of Ukraine? — Czello 14:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Implausible typo and potentially misleading given the history of Prussia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Whether a DAB or redirect for Prussian invasion of Ukraine if it were to exist, in my view is outside of the purview of this RfD. The capital PR make it relatively unlikely for someone trying to target things about historical Prussia, but also the confusion with Prussia makes the redirect itself not WP:CHEAP as it's an ambiguous and relatively unlikely typo in my view.  TartarTorte 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Shah Reza Pahlavi ==== Shah Reza Pahlavi → Mohammad Reza Pahlavi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Retarget to Reza Shah because the words "Shah Reza Pahlavi" has greater affinity to him. NotReallySoroka (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP ==== Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Persistent dynamic IP at Talk:Autism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 0 page views most years, most views likely accidental search hits. Clutters WP namespace, title improper. Opal|zukor(discuss) 09:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete per nom. Starship 24 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Kv bhu ==== Kv bhu → Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in target page. Could be a short form of KV Bhutan. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Ferdinand I of Spain ==== Ferdinand I of Spain → Ferdinand II of Aragon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This should be a disambiguation between Ferdinand I of Castile and Ferdinand I of Aragon, or should outright be deleted. While Ferdinand II of Aragon was the first Ferdinand to rule a (mostly) united Spain, he wasn't numbered as Ferdinand I. This is evidenced by the fact that the next Ferdinand to rule Spain was Ferdinand VI of Spain. This redirect feels extra strange considering that Ferdinand V of Spain also redirects to the same place. Estar8806 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Primus sucks ==== Primus sucks → Primus (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This appears to be a very unlikely search term. Not mentioned at target. I propose deletion. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 00:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  What are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I am attempting to have an unlikely search term not mentioned at the target page discussed by the community. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC) You have not proposed a discussion.  You have proposed a deletion.  Your response to my question is hard to read and harder to understand.  Again: what are you trying to accomplish?  Please be specific.  -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) @C. A. Russell The nom clearly proposed deletion, so I bet they would like to accomplish the deletion of that redirect. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, obviously.  That's not an especially helpful remark.  It shouldn't be this difficult to get a coherent response to what is being asked. The redirect has been proposed for deletion.  By doing so—deleting the redirect named here (Primus sucks)—can you please state clearly: what are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. It looks a bit like G10 to me, for what it's worth. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Well it's not, and it wasn't when User:HighInBC deleted it while citing that reason in 2015, either. [1] -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Whether the redirect deserved to be G10'ed is subjective, although I do believe that HighInBC made the right call. However, the fact that you re-created the redirect unilaterally, when it is credible to say that the redirect disparages the band, is objectively inadvisable. I admit that I erred in attempting to G4 your page (though I have then voluntarily reversed my action), but just because your page cannot be G4'ed doesn't mean that your action was advisable. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC) You have no idea what you're talking about ("the redirect disparages the band").  It's not subjective.  G10 has no relevance to this redirect.  The only way to get there is from the mindset of someone pattern matching on "<X> sucks" and concluding, erroneously, that it has something to do with attacking X. Please spend less time slipping foregone conclusions into your responses here. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Keep it's a term of endearment by fans encouraged by the band: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/does-primus-really-suck-249254/ Primus bassist, vocalist and all-around figurehead Les Claypool explains that in the band’s early days, “We’d just get up there and say, ‘We’re Primus, and we suck.’ And it kind of caught on.” The band helped it along with PRIMUS SUCKS T-shirts adorned with various things that suck, such as a vacuum cleaner or a baby with a bottle. “I think it’s the greatest thing, myself,” says Claypool. It probably should be mentioned in the article but that isn't a hard and fast rule if it's a commonly enough related to the target, which this is. Skynxnex (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Based on Skynxnex's comment. Would however definitely prefer that it be mentioned in the article so people don't get the wrong idea. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Delete as an implausible search term. G10 does not apply, but since when did we start redirecting company slogans to their own articles? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Shah Pahlavi ==== Shah Pahlavi → Reza Shah  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I propose we disambiguate this redirect because in addition to Reza Shah Pahlavi, these words can also refer to his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  Sounds good to me. Nv8200pa talk 00:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Support disambiguation - It could even be reasonable to redirect to the younger shah, considering he is often simply known as "the Shah" and by far a primary topic. Estar8806 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Pahlavi dynasty#Heads of House of Pahlavi: Both of the Pahlavis to hold the title Shah are listed with some context TartarTorte 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === March 28 ===   ==== Secret court ==== Secret court → Star Chamber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned at target. The term is ambiguous (see, for example, FISA Court). I propose deletion, as search results are probably better here. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  retarget to Secret trial -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Secret trial as plausible synonym per anon. --Lenticel (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Robert Matthew Montgomery ==== Robert Matthew Montgomery → Miami Marlins minor league players#Matthew Montgomery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Montgomery was released from minor league baseball in 2014, so he no longer appears on the target roster page (or anywhere that would be good to target this redirect to). Recommend deletion as the subject is non-notable and there's not a single great target. Hog Farm  Talk 21:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== North Street School ==== North Street School → Feilding#Education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] North Street School is a very general name and there could be many schools with that name. Google's first results are a Greenwich, CT school anyway. PalauanReich (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Woodsdale ==== Woodsdale → Woodsdale, Tasmania  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] There's at least 3 additional towns this search term could refer to (Kansas, North Carolina, Ohio) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Disambiguate: Seeing no overwhelming WP:PTOPIC, DABing makes sense. TartarTorte 15:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate; no primary topic. J947 † edits 18:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate There is no primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Bulang ==== Bulang → Brown University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned at target. The pages that point to this redirect refer to Bulang as an ethnic group or as an island. Pointing to Brown University doesn't make sense. I think this page is better left as a red link until an appropriate article can be created. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget to Blang people which gives "Bulang" as an alternate spelling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Blang people per Presidentman. --Lenticel (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Luoshanji ==== Luoshanji → Los Angeles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Kangzhou → Connecticut  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Per point 8 of WP:R#DELETE and WP:RFOREIGN. Creator left an edit summary stating these are colloquial Chinese names for the targets. Redirects in a language other than English that point to articles not directly related with the language should be deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment – Both Chicago and Los Angeles seem to have a sizable Chinese-American minority (See: History of Chinese Americans in Chicago, History of Chinese Americans in Los Angeles). These two linked articles may also be a better target than the cities themselves. Though, this depends on whether the Chinese languages are still spoken among the immigrant population: the Chicago article doesn't make it clear while the Los Angeles article makes it seem to be the case. Randi Moth TalkContribs 20:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Somehow I managed to misread "Connecticut" as "Chicago". My bad, this comment only applies to Los Angeles in this case. Randi Moth TalkContribs 13:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget Luoshanji to Chinese exonyms#United States where mentioned, since it's unambiguous. Disambiguate Kangzhou for whatever meets WP:DABRED or WP:DABMENTION (currently Kangzhou (Northern Zhou) mentioned at Kang County and Kangzhou (Tang dynasty) mentioned at administrative divisions of the Tang dynasty). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk "Isdatelstwo Nauka" ==== Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk "Isdatelstwo Nauka" → Nauka (publisher)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk → Nauka (publisher)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN Izdatel'stvo "Nauka" → Nauka (publisher)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN → Nauka (publisher)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete: not mentioned at target, unlikely search term. greyzxq talk 22:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment This appears to be romanized Russian, which machine-translated as "Academic Research and Publishing, Production and Printing and Book Distribution Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences" [2]. This could refer to the target article, but it is an unlikely search term. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Based on this website, there might be a connection.  The publisher is listed as Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij I knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN Izdatel'stvo "Nauka".  (Still, WP:RFOREIGN might still apply.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: I have merged the 4 discussions into one, as the redirects are related to each other and it's very likely that they'll end with the same result. Randi Moth (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Unclear if these redirects should be deleted or kept...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: Different forms of Russian transliteration, all obscenely long, The first two appear to be based on German, which is not appropriate on the English Wikipedia in any case. It is not likely that any user would query for these terms, nor do their Russian Cyrillic equivalents appear in the destination article Nauka (publisher). How is this discussion still open after a week? Fishing Publication (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Keep, while the romanization schemes used here are German, it is a fact that many English-language  publications include foreign-style romanizations in their citations due to lack of familiarity with Russian romanization conventions, and primarily-English-speaking readers will often have to rely on bibliographies and databases maintained by German conventions (or other non-English conventions, Finnish and French also having widely-adopted standards) who correctly apply their own romanization conventions. The first two redirects appear to be written Duden-style (naive German), and the second two are either DIN (scientific German) or ISO (French), as the redirects do not use any of the characters that differ between ISO and DIN (see this guide to the various standards). As long as these terms are not ambiguous with any other potential search target (they do not appear to be), they should be kept. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 06:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Genital sex ====  Genital sex → Sexual characteristics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Target term not mentioned in the article; the title could refer to any of various sex acts that involve genitals. A previous RfD for the redirect suggested targeting to the current target, but seeing that the target is not mentioned... I suggest either disambiguating or deleting. Colgatepony234 (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep. Plausible search term. Primary sexual characteristics mentioned at target page include anatomy of internal/external genitalia, which "genital sex" seems to be used for; see Google Scholar search results with certain partial matches omitted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: disambiguation is used when a term is mentioned at multiple target pages. Search results for "genital sex" show the phrase being used for either sexual characteristics, as above, or for sexual intercourse. However, Sexual intercourse does not use the phrase "genital sex", so a disambiguation link to that article wouldn't be very helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC) setindexify -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === March 27 ===   ==== William.A. Anderson ==== William.A. Anderson → William Anderson (New Zealand politician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Obvious punctuation error, was only at this title for about an hour so we don't need to worry about preserving links from outside of wikipedia. Hog Farm  Talk 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per above: implausible/an unlikely search term and there is no need to preserve the history. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Air flow management ==== Air flow management → Data center#Environmental control  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The phrase as worded isn't exclusive to data centers. This phrase could also refer to designing ventilation and air duct systems in buildings in general. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Redirect to Airflow which has a management section. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @AngusWOOF: As far as I can tell, the Airflow article has no "Management" section? It has a "Measurement" section though ... which looks similar is spelling? Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ah, yeah, measurement section, but still dealing with airflow in general. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Airflow and tag as {{r from related topic}}. Article explicitly refers to "managing airflow" (along synonymous terms like "regulates" and "control"). If someone feels this isn't enough of a mention, it would be easy to incorporate this exact phrase into the article without affecting the meaning. With its sections on "Control" and "Uses", if more content on this topic were added to Wikipedia that article would be the logical place to put said content. – Scyrme (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Christian Biblical Council ==== Christian Biblical Council → The Way International  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)  Delete. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) The BLAR comment of Deckiller said was merged months ago. Jay 💬 10:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per {{R with history}}. Content from this stub was merged into the target many years ago and is visible in the article history, although it was removed from the article itself not long after. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Delete There are several better methods of dealing with the history than holding on to a redirect that points nowhere because of ancient nonsense from 15 years ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== List of Blu-ray Disc devices ==== List of Blu-ray Disc devices → Blu-ray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  List of bluray players → Blu-ray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  List of blu-ray devices → Blu-ray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  List of bluray devices → Blu-ray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  List of blu-ray players → Blu-ray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  List of Blu-ray devices → Blu-ray  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] While I understand redirects like Blu-ray player, these are misleading as the target does not contain a such a list. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment: Looks like the bottom five targeted the first redirect as it was an actual list at the time.  The next edit turned the list into a redirect for the reason, Wikipedia is not a review site or something for people in-the-know; this section is heavily outdated and there are floods of BD players on the market now anyways.  Still, this might be a {{R with history}}.  However, I should mention that there was a successful AfD in 2019 for List of HD DVD devices following the successful 2018 AfD for List of HD DVD releases.  As for redirects 2-6, the most usage any of them has had is "List of bluray players" with just 313 views in almost eight years.  (Currently leaning towards keeping the first and towards deleting the rest.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I overlooked this the first time, but this edit from the Blu-ray article created the table that was later split off into "List of Blu-ray Disc devices" a few month later.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Why not. I'd be down with Super Goku's suggestion too. SWinxy (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. There is no such list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: There's unanimous agreement to delete redirects #2-#6, but not yet a clear consensus for #1.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Delete all, treating the first one as a soft delete allowing a REFUND to restore the blanked article. It seems there wasn't any actual merge so there is no reason to keep the history. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Volvo F4 ==== Volvo F4 → Volvo S40  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This redirect page makes no sense. Volvo F4 was a series of lorries 1975-86. Volvo S40 was a series of cars 1995-2012. There is no resemblance whatsoever. Glaucidium (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget to Volvo Trucks#Past products (with or without the page anchor). Skynxnex (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Volvo Trucks: It seems during early development it was called the F4, but never released under that name. TartarTorte 21:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Volvo Trucks per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Template:Großes Bild ==== Template:Großes Bild → Template:Wide image  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Implausible foreign language redirect, I propose to delete per WP:RFFL Aaron Liu (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)  rewrite as a "sustitute only wrapper" like Template:Infobox mountain/Berg and others. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC) @Frietjes The redirect does not change the parameters though, these wrappers exist mostly for parameter translation AFAIK Aaron Liu (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC) the auto-substitute feature would change the name and fix the "dir" parameter, for another example, see Template:Références. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Comment – There seems to be precedent to include these redirects on citation-related templates, see {{Non-English citation templates}}, in order to assist the content translators. In that case, it seems useful to have a single template handle the translation of the argument names as to not have to look up their exact form after translation and whatnot. However, I don't see the discussed redirect being as useful since only the alt text is a named argument in this case, and it doesn't exist in the German Wikipedia. Randi Moth (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC) rewrite per Frietjes. On German Wiki Vorlage:Großes Bild redirects to Vorlage:Panorama which is the equivalent of Template:Wide image. So, yes, it would makes sense for this one to be substituted by the latter. That would help editors importing the template by saving time. Bermicourt (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Unless someone is willing to write a draft of the "rewrite" vote somewhere, as far as I'm concerned, those votes may "no consensus" this discussion. There cannot be an expectation that RFD closers know how to write templates. Relisting to allow more time for a potential resolution for the "rewrite" votes.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Aryaee ==== Aryaee → Zoroastrianism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I have not idea what this is supposed to mean. Veverve (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)  Looks like an Anglified spelling of Persian āryāī, meaning 'Aryan'. – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: One more try.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 16:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Aryan per Uanfala. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Delete, there are several variations mentioned at Aryan but no Aryaee or āryāī. The Persian version is mentioned as ariya. However, if there is a reliable source, this can be kept regardless of a mention. Jay 💬 14:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC) The ariya mentioned there is Old Persian, whereas āryāī is Modern Persian. Regardless, I'm not sure myself if retargeting to that article is a good idea. – Uanfala (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Try again, given the most recent comment at the buzzer ...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church ==== Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church → List of heresies in the Catholic Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Outline of Heresies in Catholicism → List of heresies in the Catholic Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church → List of heresies in the Catholic Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is not a WP:OUTLINE. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)  Looking at the histories, evidently Outline of Heresies in Catholicism was created first, then moved to Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church amending the case and making it more consistent with other titles, then it was moved again to Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church to make it "more concise", and then finally merged (apparently after this discussion) with the current target of all these redirects. Keep Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church and delete the other two, as they no longer serve a purpose. Might also be worth including the draft-stage redirects in this discussion (I think they can also be safely deleted now too). If content from the merge survives at the target then Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church needs to be kept to preserve the history. The only significant history pertaining to the other two is that they were moved, but this is redundantly recorded in the history of Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church along with a number of other moves (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of Catholic Ecumenical Councils, Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of Heresies in Catholicism, and Draft:Outline of Heresies in Catholicism), so nothing important would be lost by deleting them. Some old links buried in a few archives might be affected, but it might be better if the stopped working anyway since they're misleading (they imply that an outline article exists; it doesn't). – Scyrme (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Scyrme: What do you think about the discussion that followed the relist? Jay 💬 17:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Heresy in the Catholic Church is a prose article not an outline. (Wikipedia:Outlines § What an outline is not) Redirecting from a format with a particular function to an article that doesn't have that function seems to me to be misleading and unhelpful. In this case "closest" to what the reader wants isn't good enough; that same rationale could be used to justify treating every prose article as an "outline" of its topic. It disrupts an intentional pattern and undermines reader expectations regarding what "outline of..." articles are and how they should be structured and used. Neither target is ideal, but a list article is closer in function than a prose article. Additionally, the reason for keeping these is to preserve the history, but retargetting would break the connection between the history and the relevant destination. While a template could be placed on the talk page to note the connection, I don't think the case for retargetting is strong enough to break the direct connection. – Scyrme (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church as a redirect with history. It is a reasonable redirect to a related topic. The other two are reasonable search terms as well. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Keep; even if not truly an outline, this is the closest to what a reader is looking for when searching this. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk and An anonymous username, not my real name: what about the article Heresy in the Catholic Church? Veverve (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC) @Veverve: Are you suggesting a retarget now? Jay 💬 10:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC) @Jay: No, I was asking those users (re-ping: @Red-tailed hawk and An anonymous username, not my real name:) why they believed a list of heresies declared as such by the Catholic Church was considered an outline, but not Heresy in the Catholic Church which is the article that details a Catholic vision of what a heresy is. I could accept a retarget to Heresy in the Catholic Church as a second choice. Veverve (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC) In that case, I change my vote to retarget per about. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I would also be OK with retargeting to Heresy in the Catholic Church. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk and An anonymous username, not my real name: Although neither is truly an "outline", isn't a list closer in function than a prose article? And why break the direct connection between the redirect and the article with which it was merged? – Scyrme (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I'm fine with either — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I too have no preference. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Delete I'm not convinced either proposed target is suitable - the search term "outline of" means one is clearly looking for an outline, not some other type of article, and thus a redirect to something else is more confusing that helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)@Pppery: To clarify, does your delete also apply to the redirect with substantial history or only to the two without said history? Or do you feel the history doesn't warrant preserving in this case? – Scyrme (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not convinced of the need to preserve history when the entire significant content was written by just two editors: The Transhumanist and Marikafragen * Pppery * it has begun... 23:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== KWBD ==== KWBD → KDLH  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This callsign isn’t mentioned at the target article at all, that’s why I think this redirect should be deleted. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Weak delete - looking back through the article history, KWBD was a callsign for a cable-only WB affiliate run by KDLH starting in 1995. When the WB and UPN merged to form The CW and went digital-only, KWBD became a sidechannel, KDLH-DT2. This was described in the article when the redirect was created, but was unceremoniously removed entirely in 2009. I say weak delete because the entire section was unsourced and I don't support restoring it, and also because KWBD is evidently also the name of a fictional station in a fantasy television organization (league?), the existence of which is my TIL for today, and good indication I need to get off the internet and go outside for a while. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Nominator comment, I think, we should re-add the information with reliable sources. From Bassie f (his talk page) 09:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to The WB 100+ Station Group as an {{R to list entry}} — KWBD is mentioned there (most, but not all, cable-only WB affiliates were part of The WB 100+ Station Group; this one was). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget per WCquidditch * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Amar Bail ==== Amar Bail → TV One Pakistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention of the term at the target. —Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete. No relevant content at target (there wasn't any at the time of the redirect's creation either [3]). This is the name of a book by Umera Ahmad (mentioned in her article, but with no other content), presumably it was adapted into a television film by this channel. – Uanfala (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I hadn't seen the list entry for the programme at List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan). However, like with the novel, there's no content beside the bare mention, so I don't think this makes for any better redirect target. – Uanfala (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Redirect to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan): Mentioned under the drama series section. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Redirect to Umera Ahmed as author of the original.  TV One seems to be the adaptation, but isn't notable enough on its own yet. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold ==== List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold → List of generation II Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  List of Pokémon in Pokémon Silver → List of generation II Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold and Silver → List of generation II Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The redirect titles are inaccurate. The second generation of games (Gold, Silver, & Crystal) introduced 100 new Pokémon but the games also contained the original first generation Pokémon as well. The target only contains a list of the 100 new Pokémon. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Weak keep: The Nominator is technically right but I’ve gotta cite WP:CHEAP here. Yes, the target only mentions the new Pokémon added in generation 2 but someone could type this into the search bar trying to look for the new Pokémon added in generation 2. I should also mention that the target’s title is also incorrect. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Comment:I still see these redirects as an issue due to the inaccuracy of the titles. I think, if someone were to search these terms, they would be expecting to find an entire list and not just the new Pokemon introduced in these games. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Would a retarget to List of Pokémon work? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  I think it would make more sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Phil Bale ==== Phil Bale → Christian Bale  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Though "Philip" is Christian Bale's second middle name, it does not appear as though he ever by the name. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  We do have a stub about Philip Bale, but I have no idea if he ever went by Phil. - Eureka Lott 17:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Dwayne Bowles ==== Dwayne Bowles → Dwayne Johnson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Was never known as Dwayne Bowles. His father, Rocky Johnson, was born as Wayde Bowles but legally changed his name to Rocky Johnson (which was the moniker he went by) before Dwayne was born. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete per nom. No details in any of his bios that he goes by this name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Ora 7 Jon(2023 film) ==== Ora 7 Jon(2023 film) → Ora 7 Jon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Counting the variation with a capital F for film, this is the third time this page has been re-created by a user. Based on the missing space between the title and the disambiguator, it's an improperly formatted title and unlikely search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Speedy delete it was only at the title for around 7 minutes so I think R3 applies per WP:RDAB, will tag as such. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as temporary housekeeping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Arthur Fleck Wayne ==== Arthur Fleck Wayne → Joker (2019 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] That is not the character's full name, and the narrative reveals he is not related to Thomas Wayne. Kailash29792 (talk)  13:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep {{R from search term}} / {{R from incorrect name|Arthur Fleck}} / {{R from avoided double redirect|Arthur Fleck}}  -- and it is not revealed that he is not a Wayne in the film. The film's Thomas Wayne claims he is not the father, while the Fleck's mother claims he is. There is no elucidating flashback to the conception moment with a different man, so it falls within the film's very misleading narrator ethic, as not everything presented in the film is happening, whether it is with Thomas Wayne or any other incident. -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Rosalind the rover ==== Rosalind the rover → Rosalind Franklin (rover)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Rosalind Franklin the rover → Rosalind Franklin (rover)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Franklin the rover → Rosalind Franklin (rover)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete all per WP:PANDORA; we don't have redirects for English the language or Mercury the element nor do we need them. An anonymous username, not my real name 19:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep Rosalind the rover, delete the other two. "Rosalind the rover" seems to have coverage as an alternate name ([4],[5],[6]); the other two don't. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Rosalind the rover, delete the other two per Edward-Woodrow. Why has WP:PANDORA not been formally killed yet? Contrary to the misinformation it espouses, we judge redirects on their own merits not on whether our crystal ball predicts that other redirects that have some unspecified similarity with a different redirect might be created potentially using the other redirect as justification. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep all as they have had similar pageviews over time, which is a little over a view per month. I see why "Rosalind the rover" might be preferred (as User:An anonymous username, not my real name pointed out), but the pageviews suggest otherwise, and "Rosalind Franklin the rover" is also attested too (e.g. [7], [8]). Duckmather (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Keep first two, Delete Franklin the rover Does not follow the last name convention as with people. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Sirish ==== Sirish → Ceres (dwarf planet)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Retarget to Allu Sirish; there is no reason I can find that it should go here. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete: It should never have been created.  Allu is a possible interest, but is not the primary topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate, since it can also refer to Sirish Gurung. The current targeting is because it's the Beltalowda translation of Ceres, but this isn't an Expanse wiki and that's not an appropriate target. - Eureka Lott 04:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Beltalowda translation of Ceres?  What are people think, inserting transient recent fiction fandom into Wikipedia?! User:EurekaLott, can you help me understand RfD-ers?  Why keep a bad redirect that should never have been made?  If it hadn’t been made, would you now create it to point to a DAB?  Why not let the internal search engine do its job? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The title can plausibly refer to multiple people for whom we have articles. Why wouldn't we want to disambiguate (or to be more specific, set-indexify) it? - Eureka Lott 05:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Because the internal search engine is a more robust solution.  It picks up things people didn’t think of, and its results change as mainspace changes.  With the redirect, the reader doesn’t get the internal search results. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate per Eureka Lott. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - neither of the suggested targets are known by the mononym "Sirish", thus any resulting disambiguation page will only contain partial title matches which the guideline instructs not to include. Dab pages are not search results, we have a search engine for that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Creating WP:SIAs for given names and surnames is normal practice, and isn't covered under WP:PTM. Cases like this are exactly why {{Given name}} has the "type=both" parameter. - Eureka Lott 01:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Weak Delete per Ivanvector: the argument for creating a disambiguation is not enough to overcome the reasons for deletion. The disambiguation would be unnecessary anyway. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Setindexify per above. At least in this scenario, Allu Sirish does not show up in the search drop-down and Sirish Gurung shows up far down the search results. A set index page is standard practice and a better bet. J947 † edits 00:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Dissenting catholic ==== Dissenting catholic → Cafeteria Catholicism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I created this redirect about two years ago, and I have a feeling that this redirect may have a better target than the current one. The topic of "Theological dissent in Catholicism" might be a warranted article, and the natural place would be to point this there, but I can't quite find anything on that topic precisely. Alternatives like Heresy in the Catholic Church and/or Mater si, magistra no might fit, but I'm not sure that either would be the best place to point this. Any ideas? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  After thinking this over a bit more, I think I weakly prefer a retarget to Mater si, magistra no. It's a slogan of the "dissenting Catholic" movement that began in the 20th century, but I ultimately would prefer to target an article on that movement should one ever become written. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Keep - the current target fits better than, say, Lapsed Catholic, I think. Mater si, magistra no is an article about the slogan, and not really about the moral position, and also links to Cafeteria Catholicism anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Dewaywala ڈیوے والا ====   ==== Time location ==== Time location → Moment (time)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Obviously the target is incorrect at the moment (haha). Very weakly prefer a retarget to spacetime over deletion. J947 † edits 06:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment: Couldn't this also refer to a Time zone? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Instant. Presumeably that was the intended target rather than a medieval measure of time. This would be helpful for someone looking for the temporal equivalent of a "location" in space (or "point in space"), so a point in time. (That latter phrase was a redirect to Time, but I've since retargetted it to Instant - my move edit summary has my rationale.) I don't agree that this is likely to refer to Time zone, unless someone can demonstrate that it has been used that way in some sources. Spacetime seems like a stretch. – Scyrme (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to instant. I've also started a requested move at Talk:Moment (time), since I doubt the article with that title is the primary topic for the term. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Instant, per others. Regards, Bassie f (his talk page) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Timely moment ==== Timely moment → Moment (time)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] An unhelpful redirect as it stands, redirecting to a technical unit that bears no relation to this phrase. It has no coverage on Wikipedia or Wiktionary – thus delete. J947 † edits 05:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete - Timeliness and Timely redirects to Punctuality, but that doesn't work for this. There are number of uses of this phrase on Wikipedia, but none of those make good targets either; they are articles for biographies, songs, films, etc. not the general idea and I don't think any of those uses refer to punctuality. (As an aside, perhaps an RfD for Timeliness and Timely is warranted? I was surprised that they redirected to punctuality. They aren't always the same thing. I was expecting something like Kairos, but more general rather than specifically Greek.) – Scyrme (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Wikipedia:Technical move request ==== Wikipedia:Technical move request → Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete because it is too wordy to be used over WP:Technical moves and is the only redirect in singular form which is not usually used, making this an unlikely redirect. BhamBoi (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep. I find it useful and note no reason to delete has been given in terms of WP:R#DELETE. Note also WP:R#KEEP reason 5. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep, seems reasonable. J947 † edits 04:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Seems reasonable and useful. Not seeing a good reason to deleted it. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. I don't see a reason to delete this one. Glades12 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === March 26 ===   ==== Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son) ==== Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son) → Phillipe-Ignace François Aubert de Gaspé  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Phillipe Aubert du Gaspe (son) → Phillipe-Ignace François Aubert de Gaspé  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Everyone is someone's son: this isn't a good disambiguator. I suggest this is deleted, or retargeted to Aubert de Gaspé. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment: Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé may reasonably refer to the target or his father, who also has a Wikipedia article. Usage of "(son)" is more comparable to the Jr. suffix here. That being said, I'm not sure whether the disambiguator is plausible. Randi Moth (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 20:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Keep. If I recall correctly, the French (and by extension the Québécois) disambiguate in this regard by using fils, meaning son. Therefore this seems a particularly valid redirect – anyhow, there are plenty ways to disambiguate in such a fashion so the creation of these sorts of redirects should be encouraged in my opinion. J947 † edits 04:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Well, given that it looks like this article's title was for years incorrectly spelt (emphasis on looks), the justification for this redirect – also incorrectly spelt, seemingly – is lesser. Still, harmless. J947 † edits 04:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) At the very least, bypass the double redirect. Certes (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Three-Body - TV series ==== Three-Body - TV series → Three-Body (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Some Like It Hot - musical → Some Like It Hot (musical)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Tom Atkins - actor → Tom Atkins (actor)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Prey - 2022 film → Prey (2022 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Voyage - ABBA album → Voyage (ABBA album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Don't Look Up - 2021 film → Don't Look Up (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Happy New Year - ABBA → Happy New Year (song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Friendly Fascism - book → Friendly Fascism (book)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Spacecraft bus - JWST → Spacecraft bus (James Webb Space Telescope)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Spacecraft Bus - JWST → Spacecraft bus (James Webb Space Telescope)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]Pointless (just one week old) redirect per WP:RDAB, WP:PANDORA...are there any more of these out there? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  Update: also nominating all the ones of the same form thanks to the finding below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  To the nominator's question, I spot Some Like It Hot - musical, Tom Atkins - actor, Prey - 2022 film, Voyage - ABBA album, Don't Look Up - 2021 film, Happy New Year - ABBA, Friendly Fascism - book, Spacecraft bus - JWST, and Spacecraft Bus - JWST, all by the same creator. That goes back to November 2021; I imagine there's more past that. Will leave it to the nominator to decide bundling etc.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks a bunch for checking! I've gone ahead and added those to the nomination. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - @Tamzin and Rhododendrites: (and others) - As OA of the RDs - no problem whatsoever re the final decision re these RDs - should note (as before at User talk:Drbogdan#Redirects) the following: Yes - *entirely* agree - creating less "WP:Redirects" may now be in order of course - seemed that not too long ago, creating Redirects were being *encouraged* among WikiEditors - to help make it easier to find WikiArticles by searchers and the public - since then, there seems to have been some change in the related WikiThinking? - additionally, some Redirects were created to work better in Facebook (and related websites) since related posts to WikiArticle titles containing an ending ")" and/or ending "?" were not being detected for some reason - as a result, users would end up on a WikiError page instead of the WikiArticle as intended - I posted this problem in the "Village Pump" some years ago ( see "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 162#Workaround for dropped ")" in titles?" ) but did not obtain a better resolution to the concern at the time - a possible workaround seemed to be to create Redirects for such problematic WikiTitles - in any case - no problem whatsoever with this of course - just needed to know the latest WikiThinking about this these daysIn any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)ADD - If interested, I recently (3/20/2023) posted the related WikiProblem (bug?) of dropping WikiArticle Title endings and creating WP:RDs as a recommended possible Solution (and other related Solutions) on the Village Pump - Technical at the following => Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 204#Problem: External postings of article title links continue to drop endings of titles? - as well as - at => User talk:Drbogdan#Redirects - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Delete consistent with thev long-standing essay Wikipedia:Redirects are costly. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete seem like implausible search forms.★Trekker (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep all. I don't understand why anyone would want to delete these redirects? They're all unambiguous, plausible search terms for the target that are demonstrably useful in some situations (WP:R#KEEP). We don't require readers to know our titling conventions in order to find what they want. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Thryduulf. Not particularly helpful to create, but rather less helpful to delete. J947 † edits 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Thryduulf. Readers don't know disambiguation titling conventions, and these redirects don't seem to be actively harming the encyclopedia. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Keep: Per Thyrduulf. They're possibly useful and unambiguous. I'm not seeing how it would be beneficial to delete these titles. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Digvijay Chautala ==== Digvijay Chautala → Sonipat Lok Sabha constituency#Election results  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] redirect should be deleted -- name of a candidate in the previous election,  no notability, no relevance, very confusing that the name of a private individual redirects to a page about an election Fishing Publication (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget to Digvijay Singh Chautala. The article appears to be on the same person. Randi Moth (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)It appears that the article I mentioned has been BLAR'd to the same target as the currently-discussed redirect. I do not agree with deletion, however there are several potential targets. Political families of Haryana#Devi Lal's Chautala clan appears to be a good target. Randi Moth (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Digvijay Singh Chautala: I reverted the blank-and-redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Life Before Earth ==== Life Before Earth → Abiogenesis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete as unhelpful/unclear; not what this article is about. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete, as it is a wrong title as well. Earth itself predates the existence of life, so there's no "life before Earth". There is in fact a theory that life may started elsewhere and then came here (Panspermia), but the relation is too convoluted to be a workable redirect to that article either. It's, in fact, a side theory: the main panspermia theory is that life may survive in the vacuum under certain conditions and meteorites may carry it from one celestial body to another (from elsewhere to Earth, but also from Earth to other places). Cambalachero (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Delete, as above, this redirect makes no sense and has no value. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Keep - As OA of the "Life Before Earth" "Redirect", seems there is sufficient (and ample) discussion of the "Life Before Earth" topic in the "Abiogenesis"- related discussions ( see => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Life before Earth - or not?" - and => Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 5#First sentence..." - and => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 4#Life from "Inanimate Matter" or "Simple Organic Compounds"?" - as well as => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Panspermia in the lead" ) - to justify the "Redirect" to the "Abiogenesis" article -  in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, well two of these discussions were started by you and in any case, talk page discussion is not reason for a redirect to an article. Anyone searching this will not find what they were looking for. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Nonetheless - seems such ample discussions (and the many related "WP:RS" "references") of the "Life Before Earth" topic sufficient to be "redirected" to the "Abiogenesis" or "Panspermia" articles (or some related article) I would think - in any case - if interested, additional related discussions re "Life Before Earth" are here => "Talk:Extraterrestrial life#Better "short description" of "ET life"?" - and here => "User talk:Drbogdan#LifeBeforeEarth" - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as an unlikely search term, inherently ambiguous, and incorrectly capitalized anyway.  I'm also a bit at a loss trying to understand anything the redirect creator writes, since it's full of oddly placed quotation marks, ASCII arrows for no apparent reason, overuse of italics and bold, etc etc etc. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Thank You for your comments - quotation marks (and ASCII arrows) help to define hyperlinks and urls (not always apparent in my experience) - and seem to have worked very well over many years - without any similar concern noted by others - nonetheless - style, limited test effort in a few instances, does Not extend at all to MainSpace articles which remain conventional of course - in any case - Thanks again  for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, 35.139.154.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), while allegedly a brilliant person IRL, this person's edits mostly seem to reflect their talk page discussion style: difficult to understand gibberish injected into well-written articles. This may be worth looking further into. I would hate to ask this unnecessarily, but could this be a case of WP:CIR? An anonymous username, not my real name 20:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Delete incorrect, since abiogenesis doesn't relate to life before Earth, and there isn't another sensible target. The closest I can think of is Panspermia, but I don't think it would be described like that. Hut 8.5 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC) The redirect may be referring to the book by Sharov and Gordon which is used in a citation at the target. However, I find the words "life before earth" plausible as a search term by readers who are looking for an article that talks about life not originating on Earth, but having been seeded here, which is Panspermia. Also see article on how this can be a simple layman term. While Life off earth or Life beyond Earth redirect to Extraterrestrial life, the mention of origin of life at that article again refers to Panspermia. If the interest is in the theory of deliberate seeding of life on Earth, Directed panspermia is a section at Panspermia and linked from there. I'm willing to hear more about why two particpants didn't find Panspermia a suitable enough target, or how the redirect may be ambiguous and may refer to multiple articles. The capitalization is not a big concern, it can be renamed. Jay 💬 12:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Panspermia for the lowercased title per Graeme. Add a hatnote to Extraterrestrial life for readers expecting to read about life that may have existed on other planets per Scyrme. That article has sections on various planets and moons with hatnotes to their individual articles. Oppose a retarget to Earliest known life forms as that is specifically about Earth, and the mention of Panspermia is only in an image caption. Mentioning Panspermia there in a section called Fossil evidence would be WP:UNDUE. Jay 💬 05:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)I'm also fine with refining to Extraterrestrial life#Characteristics, the section mentioned by Scyrme. Jay 💬 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)retarget to Panspermia. This was the first thing that I thought would be suitable, and there is no more suitable action for this mentioned so far. But it would make more sense if this was lower case, so no prejudice about deleting the title case version, and making life before earth a redirect to panspermia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Comment - Abiogenesis means, literally, the Origin of Life (OoL) from nonliving matter - Life may have originated on Earth - or, actually, somewhere else (Panspermia) - Abiogenesis does Not literally mean that Life began on Earth exclusively - this notion was thoroughly discussed earlier on the Talk pages of Abiogenesis and elsewhere - no problem whatsover to target the RD (ie, Life Before Earth) to Abiogenesis, Panspermia or some other related article - or even - to rename the RD to Life before Earth or similar - should note listing of WP:RS Relevant Referenes includes studies by NIH scientists Sharov and Gordon as well as other researchers (see => User talk:Drbogdan#LBE-References) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healhy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Delete. "Life Before Earth" with its particularly phrasing and capitalisation is formated like the title of a work not a Wikipedia article for a general topic. Searching the exact phrase "Life+Before+Earth" I was able to find a number of articles with that title, suggesting it is plausible that a searcher is actually looking for a proper noun not a general article about abiogenesis or panspermia. Since Wikipedia doesn't have content about any of these works, the title should remain vacant.That said, "abiogenesis" ordinarily refers to the origin of life on Earth not in general, and this is reflected in the content of Abiogenesis the vast majority of which is concerned with terrestrial abiogenesis. Of-course "abiogenesis" could encompass extraterrestrial abiogenesis and the article does mention panspermia, but it is not the main topic of that article. The article is predominantly concerned with Earth and the conditions that made life on Earth possible, with even extraterrestrial factors being mentioned in the context of their effect on the Earth. Furthermore, the phrase "life before Earth" does not necessarily indicate that a reader is looking for anything about where life originated whether abiogenically or not. It says nothing about where life originated or how, only when. Perhaps the searcher is interested in whether life was possible on other planets before Earth became habitable, not necessarily even in the context of panspermia but simply whether it could even have existed indepenently long before the Earth was inhabited. That's a reasonable thing to ask, even without getting into fringe theories. As far as I'm aware, there is no article or section that deals with that particular question. With these considerations neither abiogenesis nor panspermia make good targets for even the lowercase version. If the lowercase is created, my preference would be for it to point to Earliest known life forms, an article which mentions abiogenesis and panspermia but isn't narrowly focused on 'origin of life' topics, rather it's concerned with the broader question of the earliest life (a redirect to Earliest known life forms). – Scyrme (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) @Jay: Although the term "panspermia" does only occur in an image caption, the actual concept is discussed in the text following the sentence begining The possibility that.... If you feel this is undue, then perhaps it should be removed. That said, taking a closer look at Extraterrestrial life it seems that article does cover the particular question I mentioned: during a habitable epoch when the universe was only 10–17 million years old. Life may have emerged independently at many places throughout the universe, as it arose on Earth roughly 4.2 billion years ago through chemical processes. (Extraterrestrial life § Characteristics) In light of that, I now prefer Extraterrestrial life for the lowercase. – Scyrme (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Delete if this were to exist, it should not point to abiogenesis. This is not about non-biological origin of life, it is about life before Earth. That's not a related statement. Extraterrestrial life would be the only valid option as a target. Panspermia would require that life spreads, also not a related statement. A time-like curve and resolve the lack of a non-biological origin to life. -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Secondary Period ==== Secondary Period → Mesozoic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete as misleading; the Mesozoic is an era, not a period. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)   Comment: I do not support or oppose the nomination, but I *do* believe it should be handled in the same manner as Secondary period (which redirects to the same place, Mesozoic) and Primary period (which redirects to Paleozoic). Jdaloner (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate/Keep – Periods within the Mesozoic era do have synonymous names as secondary periods, and there is evidence of "secondary period" being used as a uniting term for all three, such as these Google Books results: [9] [10] [11]. Since its use is verifiable, this is a plausible search term to lead to the Mesozoic era. Misleadingness is not a problem here, since the target is not unexpected. {{R from incorrect name}} can be used, however. However, it is ambiguous. On Wikipedia, this term is commonly used for star brightness cycles based on results of a search. Variable star may work as a link in that case, though I'm not sure whether it is covered properly there. Secondary education also appears to be a reasonable search target. It does seem plausible for Mesozoic to be the primary topic, making a DAB page unnecessary, though. Randi Moth (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC) "Secondary education also appears to be a reasonable search target." Secondary education itself does not refer to its topic as such, and I've never encountered "secondary period" as a reference to secondary education. Searching around for "secondary+period" most of my results appeared to be related to finance/law (Google, Bing), astronomy/space (Google Scholar, ScienceDirect) or various periodic phenomena in biology (ScienceDirect; usually alongside references to an "initial period"), not education. Education seems like a stretch to me. Did you find something I didn't? – Scyrme (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Found it be used in Education in Thailand and assumed it to be more common. Of course, Wikipedia articles themselves are not a good indicator whether this is common or not. If using "secondary period" for education is implausible, then keeping the redirect to Mesozoic is fine with a hatnote added linking to the variable star cycles per WP:ONEOTHER. Randi Moth (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Looking at Education in Thailand, it could just be a particular editor's choice of wording, perhaps to avoid confusion as elsewhere it uses "level" not "period" ("elementary and secondary levels") but at the particular instance where "period" is used "level" has been used in reference to a particular qualification ("Three levels of TVE"). – Scyrme (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Disambig. Google searches show three distinct uses, geological time (possibly it's an outdated term) [12][13][14], education [15][16], and something related to (the law of) financial leasing [17][18]. I can't immediately find the term mentioned in a finance-related article and don't understand it anywhere near enough to determine if there is an appropriate article, but this has the strongest case for being primary topic. Also prominent in search results are partial title matches for Long secondary period variable stars which might make a good see-also. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC) A draft for a disambiguation page would be helpful, since I'm not sure what articles would be linked for each sense. Additionally, what would be done about Secondary period (which has the same target) and Primary period? The better location for a disambiguation page would be the lowercase form, since proposed entries aren't all proper nouns. Additionally, if only Secondary Period is disambiguated, with Secondary period and Primary period being left as they are, it would introduce inconsistency, which could produce surprises for some readers. – Scyrme (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Keep consistent with Secondary period. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Color Lines (Loop) ==== Orange Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Green Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Purple Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Brown Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Pink Line (Loop) → The Loop (CTA)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] These redirects are a bit odd as they have two places they can target. One is the line itself, every one of which's article describes its path as going through the loop, or its current target. It is also possible that these are just implausible redirects and could be deleted instead of trying to find an appropriate target for them due to lack of usage. TartarTorte 19:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  None of these have mainspace links, and they receive few pageviews. However, redirects are cheap, and these could be conceivable search terms. If we were to keep these (as opposed to deleting them) I would suggest retargeting each page to the relevant line's "Route" (or equivalent section):Orange Line (Loop) → Orange Line (CTA) #Route Green Line (Loop) → Green Line (CTA)#The Loop Purple Line (Loop) → Purple Line (CTA)#Routing Brown Line (Loop) → Brown Line (CTA)#Route Pink Line (Loop) → Pink Line (CTA)#Station listingAn anchor tag could possibly be added to the relevant portion of the Pink Line's station listing for greater clarity. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 14:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Refine to The Loop (CTA)#Operations, which provides a detailed description of the relationship between these lines and the loop. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== When Quads Won't Leave ==== When Quads Won't Leave → John Callahan's Quads!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure how this relates to the target, but it is not mentioned there. Onel5969 TT me 14:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Hmm... the only sources I found are this book from 2005 [19], which refers to When Quads Won't Leave as a "sitcom in the works" from John Callahan, these two web sources, [20],[21], which describe it as a half-hour program from the same, and an interview on a blog that identifies When Quads Won't Leave as an early title for John Callahan's Quads! [22]. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Queen’s Slipper ==== Queen’s Slipper → Australian Paper  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 22:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  Wrong venue? @Onel5969: Seems the redirect text has an article under it. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Removed the uncited material, it's back to a redirect, which does not appear on the target. Onel5969 TT me 22:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Okay, strike that, but now I wonder if this redirect should be tagged with {{R with history}} since that content could have potentially been used to create an article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Not mentioned at target. Appears to be a playing cards company based on its entry in List of oldest companies in Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: It appears that Australian Paper (aka Paper Australia/Opal Australian Paper) is the manufacture of Queen's Slipper cards: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (PDF; Pg. 17 specifically), 6 (PDF), 7.  So I believe that there is a connection between the two.  --Super Goku V (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Keep and add {{R without mention}} notable brand of playing cards. Website points to Paper Australia Pty Ltd which is the same as Australian Paper. https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/3199571Z:AU?leadSource=uverify%20wall AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 13:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Keeping redirects that are not mentioned is almost always more confusing than helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Public display of dead ==== Public display of dead → Gibbeting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Ambiguous with various articles about display of bodies before funerals. We could DAB, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle things.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete as per Tamzin, was going over the NPP feed and found this to be an odd edit. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. "Public display of the dead" or "public display of dead bodies" would be expected; without the "the" (or "bodies") this is phrased like a search query not a title, so let the search engine handle it. – Scyrme (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Agree with Tamzin. (Also the gibbeting article does include gibbeting as a form of execution - not strictly 'display of dead' - but where initially live individuals eventually die from starvation or thirst, and their bodies are then left to decompose). Paul W (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Public display ==== Public display → Gibbeting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Very unexpected target. There's room for a DAB also including Publication § United States and maybe Public display of affection or some things relating to display of bodies before funerals, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle thin  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete as per Tamzin, was going over the NPP feed and found this to be an odd edit. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC) My first thought was Exhibition. Is that not the primary meaning/topic? Publication § United States and Public display of affection are a passing mention and a partial match respectively, which aren't really adequate for disambiguation. – Scyrme (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as ambiguous and likely gto be confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: It's an ambiguous term, but my first thought was the same as Scyrme's. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate. There are many forms of public display. A navigational entry makes sense to help disambiguate between them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) What articles do you propose be listed? It's true that there are many forms of public display, but a disambiguation page isn't for listing 'types of X'. I'm not sure what could be referred to simply as a "public display" except an exhibition, not including partial matches. – Scyrme (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Very ambiguous term Paul W (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Luka magic ==== Luka magic → Luka Dončić  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] All references in the target article to 'magic' refer to Magic Johnson -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment It's a verificable nickname,[23] though not common enough to go in the lead per MOS:NICKCRUFT. It seems unencyclopedic to list in the body every non-mainstream nickname of a sportsperson.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - a valid alternative name according to [24]. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per above – nicknames need not be mentioned for a redirect to be helpful; to tell the reader either "here is what the term Luka magic refers to" or "huh, I see, you don't want to type out that surname, here we'll get you to the target anyway". J947 † edits 04:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Elijah Bynum ==== Elijah Bynum → Hot Summer Nights (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Bynum has now directed two movies, the other being Magazine Dreams. The redirect is unhelpful and confusing for readers. Nardog (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== List of terrorists ==== List of terrorists → Terrorism#Perpetrators  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The redirect target is not a list of terrorists, nor does it contain a list of terrorists. Either this should be deleted per WP:REDYES to make room for an article, or it could reasonably be retargeted to List of designated terrorist groups as {{r to related topic}}. I favor the latter option over the former. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget to List of designated terrorist groups per nom. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget per above. "Terrorist" is such a loaded and controversial term that having an article at List of terrorists is probably not feasible or good for the community's sanity. List of designated terrorist groups might be the closest we can get while keeping the inclusion criteria objective. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget: Per nom. As others have mentioned the term terrorist can be subjective, so the designated terrorist groups does make the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete and salt: Someone entering "List of terrorists" is most likely searching for a list of people who have been labeled "terrorist" rather than a list of organizations, and the proposed target leaves the reader wondering where there is such a list. However, any article on it (or even a list of people who have been labeled terrorist) would be a BLP and POV nightmare, because the term is so heavily loaded and subjective. Category:Terrorists doesn't exist either, and for a good reason. Deleting this redirect for good is the only sensible option. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Κλέφτης ==== Κλέφτης → wikt:κλέφτης  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is the English Wikipedia. It's nonsense to keep a soft redirect in another language. Proposing deletion or transwikifying to elwiki. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete in the spirit of WP:RLOTE, as this word apparently means "thief" in Greek (per wiktionary), but thieves are not a particularly Greek topic. Don't transwiki the redirect either since both el:κλέφτης and wikt:el:κλέφτης both already exist. (The elwiki article is an unsourced stub though; if anyone reading this can speak Greek, I would appreciate if you expanded it.) Duckmather (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom and Duck. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === March 25 ===   ==== List of David Gandy's magazine photoshoots ==== List of David Gandy's magazine photoshoots → David Gandy#Magazine photoshoots  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The article used to contain a list of magazine photoshoots, but it was removed in 2019. gnu57 22:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Doree ==== Doree → Dory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Propose to disambiguate here, but don't know precisely what to include in it. Currently redirects to the boat dory as some flavour of alternative or incorrect name. However, there's a number of other articles which seem to be also closely related to this term. Lots of partial title matches, most of which should not be included in a dab page: Brioche Dorée, Flavescence dorée, Porte Dorée (disambiguation), The Gilded Cage (2013 film) (La Cage Dorée), Golden Youth (film) (Une jeunesse dorée), Maison dorée (Paris), Dorée River, La Dorée, jeunesse dorée (Glossary of French words and expressions in English#J), Aiguilles Dorées, and La vierge dorée. Lots of names of people, which should all be included in a mixed Doree/Dorée dab page: Doree Macy, character in My Past; Doree Shafrir; Ada Dorée; Suzanne Dorée; Doree Lewak; Doris Doree, acting name of Doris Doscher; Françoise Thérèse de Voyer de Dorée (what a name); Doree, character in Too Much Happiness; perhaps many-mentioned Doree Post; Dorée Malone, List of Blueberry characters; perhaps Victor Dorée; and Herbert John Doree, 1918 Liberal candidate in Willesden East (UK Parliament constituency). Finally, a Captain Doree is mentioned at the FA Battle of Pulo Aura, but at the Carmarthen (1802 ship) that he captains he is known as John Dobrée. Looking about Wiktionary, dorée is French for golden / gilded. Unlike wikt:dorey – a term which on en.wp redirects to dory despite Dorey (surname) – wikt:doree is solely an alternative form of dory (fish). The fish's name comes from the French word. And a couple of other questions: is the boat dory the primary topic for dory? Where should dorée point to? There's much to consider here. J947 † edits 22:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment: Fine by me! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== War pigs ==== War pigs → War pig  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This currently goes to war pig, which is about the general concept of a pig used in combat. I was expecting it to take me to War Pigs (a famous song by Black Sabbath) when typing this into the search bar. I'm unsure if this should be a retarget to the song or if we should create a dab, but I think that the current status of pointing at war pig is not optimal. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget to War pigs (disambiguation). I think war pig has a greater affinity to War pigs than War Pigs, but it has a fifth the pageviews. J947 † edits 22:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC) (This means the dab page must be moved to this redirect's name, of course.) J947 † edits 22:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. There's an adequate hatnote to avoid confusion. I can't see a pressing case to ignore WP:PLURALPT: "the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular.". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Reading through again, as nom, I agree that we should disambiguate at War pigs by moving War pigs (disambiguation) there. I don't see a clear WP:PTOPIC for the term, and I don't think this is the normal case given the existence of another entity that differs only in capitalization. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== White Points ====   ==== Oiled (road) ==== Oiled (road) → Asphalt concrete  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Oil (road). Also, the non-disambiguated version of the redirect's title, Oiled, doesn't exist and has never existed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)  My opinion did not hold weight at the previous RfD, however I'd like to repeat it here. Perhaps the redirect can be moved to Oiling (road) to indicate that this is about a process, but we still need to find a target that makes the term helpful by mentioning how the oiling is done. There is some mention at Road surface#Thin membrane surface. The previous deleted redirect was used at California State Route 54 and it's a redlink now. Jay 💬 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Salvio giuliano 18:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)@Rschen7754, Garfie489, Brianyoumans,  and Tavix: pinging the other participants from the previous RfD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I have tried to look up articles relating to what this is, and despite my industry experience i still dont know what it is. The articles all refer to something which doesnt happen in my experience. Im guessing it maybe happens more in America than it does Europe, but even the pictures ive seen of the process dont normally involve oil in my experience. I think its neither Asphalt or Bitumen, but some other product. None of what i could find gave any real information on it. Garfie489 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per oil (road); this lightly-attended discussion is getting no traction so should default to the same outsome as it's more highly-attended predecessor. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Chaos carolinense ==== Chaos carolinense → Chaos (genus)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Chaos chaos → Chaos (genus)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete as a clear case of WP:REDYES; species names generally do not redirect to their parent genera because they are worthy of their own articles. (Note that one of these two appears to be an outdated synonym with a complicated history, so it should remain a redirect, just to a different article that does not yet exist.) An anonymous username, not my real name 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)  An odd case of having a redirect from a species synonym in absence of the actual species article. I would think that targeting it at the genus would be the sensible setup here, to be retargeted once the preferred target exists. What's the benefit of deleting them instead? REDYES does not seem to apply because these are intended to be redirects, just ultimately with another target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Ah, thank you for cleaning up the target article—I had been under the impression that C. carolinense was a valid name. I guess problem solved, in that case. An anonymous username, not my real name 11:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Elmidae, and since the problem has been solved by fixing the target. CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Move first without redirect to Chaos carolinensis. Keep the second. Jay 💬 14:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Do not move any of the redirects without redirect since none of them have any edit history that needs to be retained. If nee redirects need to be created, by all means, but that's not a valid reason to move edit history of a page that has always been a redirect to a new title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC) For the second, Uanfala's dab looks good. Jay 💬 09:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Struck off vote for the first per Pppery and the below discussion. Jay 💬 08:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Elmidae, unless a separate species article is non-viable, don't we normally avoid having redirects from species to genera? On another note, C. carolinense appears to be the valid name here: I've checked against source for the synonyms in the infobox [25] as well as the source for the small tree at the bottom of the article (that's Pawlowski and Burki (2009): our Chaos appears only in the first image). It's also consistent with the naming of the other species in the genus (they have neuter endings, like -ense, while -ensis would have made this masculine/feminine). Chaos chaos is a different case though, as there also exist a band an an album with the name, so disambiguating seems like the best option here. I've drafted a dab below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Now I notice that some other sources do use C. carolinensis [26]. – Uanfala. – Uanfala (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, it's not exactly clear-cut - there are definitely sources using both variants. But in the mean I agree with the conclusion argued at Chaos_(genus)#Early_history_and_naming_controversy, which is that the field appears to be converging on carolinensis. By our structures, one of -ense or -ensis must be a redirect rather than an article, and following the genus article that redirect should be -ense. Given that (that it's fated to be a redirect), my argument is that its current state of pointing at the genus article (in absence of a species article to point to) is more nearly correct than it being a redlink - since it is never going to be an article. Does that make sense? :p (re-ping because I forgot to sign: @Uanfala:) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Interesting section. But as far as I can see, the convergence is towards Chaos carolinensis vs. Chaos chaos, Amoeba carolinensis, or Pelomyxa carolinensis. I've checked the last two refs of that section, and even though they do use the -ensis form, they don't discuss the ending. It appears more likely that this is a plausible mistake: the -ensis form is correct with respect to the two other genus name (as both Amoeba and Pelomyxa are feminine), while the fact that Chaos is neuter is not obvious (you can't tell the gender unless you look it up in a dictionary). When there are different forms in circulation, shouldn't we just follow the taxonomic databases? – Uanfala (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Soo... where would that leave us? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC) The databases appear to all use the correct form in -ense (see e.g. the "identifiers" links in Chaos carolinense (Q78611696)), unless there are other databases not listed there? (I know absolutely nothing about microorganism taxonomy, so it's possible I'm missing stuff). The form in -ensis, though incorrect, appears to still be in wide use (it seems to get 3-4 times more hits on Google Scholar). – Uanfala (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Diambiguate chaos chaos per Uanfala above. Keep Chaos carolinense; my read of the above discussion is that this is neither impeding article creation through its existence (because it's not the title the new article should use), nor an implausible typo (because it seems to be in active use, even if incorrect). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Intergenerational ethics ==== Intergenerational ethics → Intergenerational equity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  The rationale for deleting this that I gave last August seems to still apply: Intergenerational equity and intergenerational ethics are two quite distinct areas of study – the former is something studied mostly in economics and the latter mostly in moral philosophy – and the latter isn't discussed in the article on the former, or in any other article in sufficient depth to be worth retargeting. As such, WP:RDEL #10 applies and we're better off deleting this to encourage creation of an article on this topic. As this redirect was previously "soft deleted", Superb Owl is entirely within their rights to recreate it, but I continue to think it's misleading and unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete per nom. I would argue that per WP:RGUIDE ("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") this shouldn't have been soft deleted, though it doesn't make that much difference in the case of a redirect anyway. A7V2 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: The creator has contested the nomination at the RfD notification talk thread, and I have asked him to bring it here for it to be considered. Jay 💬 09:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. I did read the creator's explanation, and it didn't convince me, especially given that "ethics" is not mentioned in the body of the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. I agree that it would be better to have a redlink here than a redirect; the two are distinct concepts, and leaving a redlink would encourage someone to make an article about inter-generational ethics. The redirect creator's rationale on their talk page is frankly unconvincing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Pools (song) ==== Pools (song) → Pool  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] There are no "(song)" subjects on the target disambiguation page which have the name "Pools". Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  It might work as a retarget to Zaba (album). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Zaba (album) unless there are other uses. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Pool (sports) ==== Pool (sports) → Pool (cue sports)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Pool (sport) → Pool (cue sports)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I'm thinking these should be retargeted to Pool as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} since readers could be looking up these terms trying to locate sports associated with Swimming pool. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  The latter, singular redirect should definitely be kept as is IMO but I see what you're saying. J947 † edits 22:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Both should be kept as MOS:ENGVAR variations and should go to the same target.  Americans say sports, British use sport.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep as-is. This is too much of a stretch, and at most all that is needed is {{Redirect|Pool (sports)| |Pool (disambiguation)}}. It's also very undesirable for Pool (sport) and Pool (sports) to go to confusingly different targets.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 02:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. It's not really ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: The reason why I created this discussion is because the title of the target article is Pool (cue sports), not Pool (sports). All the "keep"-ers here ... does that mean that "(cue sports)" is unnecessary disambiguation, and the article should be moved to Pool (sports) per WP:PRECISE??? Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: As the creator of these redirects, what are your thoughts on my "unnecessary disambiguation" thoughts? If you agree, I'll consider withdrawing this and filing a WP:RM. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I think you're thinking of WP:CONCISE, as "(cue sports)" is a more WP:PRECISE disambiguation than "(sports)".  Anyway, the status quo has served us just fine for years and years. There is nothing broken, so no "fix" is needed.  You can RM it if you want, but I'm skeptical consensus would be reached to move the article to Pool (sports) (and it should not move to Pool (sport) because it's a class of sports not a single sport).  There is no rule that the shortest possible disambiguation string must be used; we use a balance of the WP:CRITERIA, weighing PRECISE and RECOGNIZABLE and NATURAL and CONCISE together.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I find that claim fascinating since the disambiguator "(cue sports)" is present in only 2 article titles and 8 redirect titles on the English Wikipedia, meaning it's used only 10 times. I'm not sure if that is a really strong case to keep the status quo since that finding doesn't particular define it to be a status quo due to the low numbers. Anyways, some food for thought here; without a disambiguation policy, it's probably hard telling where the precedence is. Anywho, with all that being said, I'm thinking I'll leave this nomination open, and am unsure of my RM idea at the moment. Thanks for the response! Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Cunt discharge ==== Cunt discharge → Vaginal discharge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Yes, it does exist as a term.  But do we really need this on WP? Onel5969 TT me 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete: highly unlikely search term, all I can find online is referring to a song by the same name, no actual usage of this term. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Delete and salt.  Yes, I know we're not censored, but I feel like we'll be right back here in a week. –Fredddie™ 06:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Keep being WP:NOTCENSORED, it seems like a valid search term. Comes up with porn results in search, so seems to be in use. Why would we delete this if it is in use, unless we are censoring things due to impropriety and the squeamishness of editors?  And PERMPROT to prevent renomination for censorship-- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep as a plausible search term and WP:NOTCENSORED. If it is being misused, vandalised, disruptively re-litigated, etc then it can be protected and/or the editor(s) misusing/vandalising/etc can be dealt with appropriately without hindering readers. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Spectator Club ==== Spectator Club → Lynbrook High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is apparently an essay by Richard Steele and should redirect there. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget to Harvard Classics#Vol. 21–30. The actual mention is in a collapsed box. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Ephebo ==== Ephebo → Ephebophilia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I think this is better targeted at Ephebos. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep current target as Ephebos doesn't use "ephebo", as "ephebos" itself is the plural. However, Ephebophilia § Etymology and definitions refers to the Ancient Greek word "ephebo". ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== JMI ==== JMI → Java Metadata Interface  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The current target of the redirect had stayed here for a long time. However, the Indian University, Jamia Millia Islamia (abbv. as JMI) has taken over the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Java Metadata Interface shows a page view of only 89, whereas the university has a page view of 24,251 (last 30 days). I boldly changed the redirect target, however was advised to start a formal RfD, so here I am. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 10:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  OK, sorry I did not check the page views. I support this retargeting given that this is obviously primary topic in India. However there are also many other options at JMI (disambiguation) and a reasonable argument may be made that there is no primary topic on a worldwide basis, though I haven't checked thoroughly the others combined may still not approach the links to Jamia Millia Islamia. We wouldn't be here if you had removed the {{Redirect|JMI}} template from the top of the Java Metadata Interface article, and moved it to the Jamia Millia Islamia article. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) lol yeah that is definitely the primary topic. SWinxy (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget as proposed; remnove hatnote at Java Metadata Interface; put hatnote at Jamia Millia Islamia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Municipalite of repe Orny ==== Municipalite of repe Orny → Orny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I am unable to determine why this old redirect exists. I can't find a "repe Orny", and the article about the municipality Orny, Switzerland doesn't help. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Move the redirect to Municipality of Orny without leaving a redirect. 176.88.80.110 (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Move to Municipality of Orny without leaving a redirect- as far as I can tell, this redirect is nonsensical and only very occasionally used (only 52 times in the past eight years). Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom (a Google search finds absolutely nothing for me either). Per WP:MOVEREDIRECT, we generally don't move redirects, and this redirect has no history to it so it's not worth an exception. (Mostly unrelated comment: "municipalite" is not English – I think it's French, but without the acute accent. I initially thought this would also qualify for WP:RLOTE, but two entries on Orny, namely Orny, Switzerland and Orny, France, are both French-speaking places.) Duckmather (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Sergey Malinka ==== Sergey Malinka → Disappearance of Madeleine McCann  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Subject not mentioned at target article, nor does he have any apparent connection to the Madeleine McCann case. This redirect was created in 2007 as a short-lived stub that was immediately redirected, possibly due to its lack of content and sourcing. Deletion would be best in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 06:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete The subject is indirectly mentioned (but not named) in the target article. He is not notable and should never have been in the target article. Thincat (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. The redirect is a BLP violation while the subject is not mentioned and I agree that they should not be. The underlying stub is unsourced, but being both sourceable and neutrally written it doesn't qualify for either G10 or BLP summary deletion (although I vacillated on the latter and nearly deleted it three times). At best the subject is a BLP1E, but the only alternative to deletion would be redirecting back to the current target... Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === March 24 ===   ==== Humanities and Social Sciences ==== Humanities and Social Sciences → Science Publishing Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Humanities & Social Sciences → Science Publishing Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Humanit. Soc. Sci. → Science Publishing Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Humanit Soc Sci → Science Publishing Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] These are all redirects for a journal, one of several hundred,  published by that company. There's no content about it in the target article, and, as the hatnote there informs us, there exists another, unrelated, journal with the same name (ISSN 1022-4483). As far as I'm concerned, that makes for a straightforward delete. But is there any chance there may be an article that covers the two actual concepts of humanities and social sciences? I can't find any, so that means deletion also per WP:XY. – Uanfala (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)  Strangely, these were created by a bot that got approval in 2018. There seem to be a large number of such redirects. They defy the common logic of "no redirect unless target has relevant content", but are there any considerations that counterbalance that? – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Keep These redirects exist to warn people that Humanities and Social Sciences is/could be a shit journal from a shit publisher, and to get picked up by WP:CITEWATCH. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21#World Open Chinese Studies Journalfor similar discussions, with the difference here that the publisher is actually notable enough to have an article. Deleting one out of the thousands is counterproductive and makes a special case of something that isn't.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC) I don't see those XfDs as relevant here as they all involve either categories or redirects to categories. A more directly relevant case (redirects from journals to a publisher article without mention) would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7#Bunch of academic journals. – Uanfala (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Delete (and most of the other 1600 redirects to that page). The current target does not help readers in any way, and even if it did it is not our job to "warn people that Humanities and Social Sciences is/could be a shit journal from a shit publisher". While WP:CITEWATCH has laudable aims, per WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW and WP:NOTDIR it should not be abusing the encyclopaedia, especially the mainspace of it, to achieve those aims. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Delete all per Thryduulf, and per my usual stance on these categories and redirects. (Seriously, I have nothing additional to add to this in addition to what Thryduulf said ... since the statement summed up my thoughts better than I ever could.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Keep because even if they aren't mentioned in the current version of the article (which is not a requirement, and never has been, even if this page has seen a lot of "delete because the current version doesn't mention it" nominations for the past few years).  These redirects help people figure out something about the subject, and something is more than nothing.  I wouldn't object to retargeting an individual redirect, if there were a more sensible page for it to point to (e.g., if someone ever wrote an article on a an academic division of Humanities and social sciences), but until there is a specific need to retarget, I see no value in just deleting them.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC) That's all fine in theory, but the current target doesn't tell anyone anything useful - if they know that this is a journal they might be able to figure out that this article about a journal publisher is relevant because they publish this journal, however if they know this is a journal they probably already know who publishes it so it's unhelpful (it doesn't help them find more information but instead actively makes finding that harder). If they don't know that this is a journal, then this page will most likely just leave them confused, so it's unhelpful - it's even worse if someone is looking for information about the academic discipline. "Something is better than nothing" can be true, but is not always - the test for a redirect is always is it more useful than harmful, and in this case there is near zero utility and lots of (potential) harm so there is no justification for its existence. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC) It tells me something useful, especially if I encounter the link in the middle of a citation, and since citations don't normally name the publisher, then it's not true that "if they know this is a journal they probably already know who publishes it".  See also WP:RFD#KEEP #5:  "Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." Of course it would be better if the article itself was improved, but nothing we do about the redirect will affect the article's contents, and once editors declare (without evidence) that an academic journal isn't notable, then it can be difficult to get any information about the journal into an article.  I spent hours trying to add independent sources to List of MDPI academic journals last year, and someone removed it because independently sourced information is – in his personal opinion – "promotional".  I would not be entirely surprised if any attempt to list the journals for this publisher would also get such a reaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC) If there is consensus that we shouldn't have any information about this journal, which seems to be what you are describing (see also WP:NOTDIRECTORY), then we should not have a redirect pointing to our lack of information about this journal because that actively misleads readers trying to find information. RFD#KEEP point 5 is not a trump card, some people saying they find it slightly useful if they see it in certain context that, with their prior experience, gives them enough hints to understand that when they arrive at a page that offers no information about their search term they can make a guess at why they are there and use that to guess something about the topic that might or might not be correct, relevant or helpful is hardly evidence that the counter arguments about harm, confusion and unhelpfulness are incorrect - especially when the required initial context is not the only way people will arrive here. Additionally, redirects should not be used as an end-run around consensus to exclude (or lack of consensus to include) information about non-notable topics. Thryduulf (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC) WP:RFD#KEEP #5 is not a trump card no, but WP:IAR is. Wikipedia is better off with these redirects than without them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC) In what way is confusing and misleading readers better for the encyclopaedia than not confusing or misleading them? Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC) This is the most wide-spread "WP:IAR" claim I have ever seen on Wikipedia to a point where WP:IAR doesn't apply anymore. Either get a policy created for this crap, or stop claiming WP:IAR since it isn't WP:IAR due to all the discussions for such redirects. Yeah, I'm being pedantic, but whatever. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Indeed, WP:IARUNCOMMON is relevant here. There over 1600 redirects to this article alone, that's not something IAR could justify even if the rule you are ignoring was preventing you from improving the encyclopaedia (which it isn't). Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC) It can easily justify them, because they all are beneficial to both the reader, by warning them these journals are associated with predatory publishers, and to Wikipedia by being needed for the WP:CITEWATCH.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC) (Sorry for my intentional WP:BLUDGEON here since I hate it when others do it, but anyways): Then WP:IARUNCOMMON applies here like a hawk. Get the relevant policies updated since WP:IAR should not apply to something of this scale/magnitude; your WP:IAR claim really isn't valid anymore due to how often you have done this. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Steel1943 has it spot on here - if you can justify all these redirects then you should have no problem at all getting a consensus for amending the relevant policy so you don't need to ignore any rules and so IAR doesn't apply. If on the other hand you can't get such a consensus then what you are doing is clearly not improving the encyclopaedia so IAR doesn't apply. However, it's not just one rule you are attempting to ignore here - you're trying to ignore at least WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW, WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and (arguably) WP:NPOV as well as long-standing consensuses regarding redirects needing to be mentioned. Trying to shove all that into a single WP:IAR is not acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC) IARUNCOMMON is a two-sentence "essay" written by yourself. And nowhere does it say that IAR stands for "Ignore A Rule". Basically, your last remark argues for abandoning IAR completely. --Randykitty (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) The point here is that WP:IAR has been used every time to validate the current situation ... well over a thousand times. WP:IAR is to be used for rare exceptions; no way 1000+ existent instances of something is considered rare. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I have to admit that I missed the 999 other discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC) ...You missed the statement above stating there are about 1600 similar redirects pointing towards this target? Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, I saw that, so that's 1 case. Now point me to the other 999. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC) IAR is being claimed as the justification for all of the redirects from journal names to this article, and (presumably) for similar redirects to other publishers. Given that the redirects require rules to be ignored in order to exist but the target articles don't (or at least I don't recall anyone claiming they do) it is the redirects that are being enumerated. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC) It may have been written by myself (in response to someone else quoting my words) but nowhere I've used it, or where I've seen others use it, has anyone rebutted it (including you here). Length is not relevant - indeed it's longer than WP:IAR itself. Most importantly IAR is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, you must have a good reason why the rules need to be ignored and the outcome of ignoring those rules must be an improvement to the encyclopaedia that was not possible without ignoring the rules. For a handful of instances it's no big deal if you don't get consensus for a small change that's unquestionably an improvement, however it is a very big deal if you're using it to justify tens of actions (in this case over one thousand six hundred actions) that are, at best, of dubious benefit (or as here actually a net disbenefit). It's worth noting that the community strongly desires advance consensus for mass actions that don't require any rules to be ignored, which is further evidence that ignoring rules on a mass scale is inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC) If I'm not missing something, the latter three redirects aren't tagged. J947 † edits 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks, I must have forgotten. Will tag them now. – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per Thryduulf. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I've added the list of journals, which should address the concerns of @Uanfala, Thryduulf, Steel1943,  and Nikkimaria: now that HSS is mentioned at the article.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC) The addition of the list is definitely an improvement to the article, and I'm sure some editors would be happy with redirects to list entries. However, I don't see a redirect as useful if the only relevant information about its topic in the target article is the fact that it exists. Also, my main concerns were to do with the redirect's ambiguity. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)  Another indicator of this ambiguity comes from the incoming links: I've had a look, and I've had to change all five of them [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] as they intended other topics. – Uanfala (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC) These links exists because of poor grammar, and People Who Believe Their Position and Field of Study is Very Important and Thus Must Be Capitalized. These aren't legitimate standalone topics, they're just your standard XY crossbreeds. Or flat out bad links (e.g. Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences should be Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences)  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Per Uanfala, and the earlier comments about long lists of publications tending not to stick in journal publisher articles (seemingly for good reason), my deletion recommendation stands. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Keep at least the latter two redirects as they fairly unambiguously refer to the journal. Unsure what to do with the others. J947 † edits 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Keep the latter two per J947. Disambiguate one of the former two, and retarget the other to it. Rename the existing ones as Humanities and Social Sciences (journal), Humanities & Social Sciences (journal) to remove ambiguity, and so they can continue to be linked in citations. Tag as {{R from journal}}. Or create the dab at Humanities and social sciences, with one of the entries to Humanities, arts, and social sciences (it is better than nothing per WhatamIdoing ). Also, there is one article section Humanities#Humanistic theories and practices that briefly provides a comparison of humanities and social sciences. Brief, but could be exactly what some readers are looking for. Jay 💬 13:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: To allow further discussion now that the journal is mentioned at the target article, which previously did not mention journal names.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per Headbomb: the merits of keeping outweigh those of not, and the journal is actually mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC) This is a tricky one. Were this not mentioned, I'd probably agree with Thryduulf et. al and support deletion, but now that it is, the bottom two should be kept, and refined to Science Publishing Group#List of journals. Independently of all of that, Disambiguate the top two, as there seems to be no dispute that they are ambiguous. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== I took the wok to poland ==== I took the wok to poland → Poland (song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure how this relates to the song.  Perhaps it's a lyric?  But if so, it's not mentioned in the article. Onel5969 TT me 18:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep – Fine {{R from lyric}}. Per Genius' lyrics, the chorus consists of "I took the Wock' to Poland" being repeated 3 times, so it's very plausible that someone might search for the lyrics (misspelling "Wock" as "Wok" is plausible as well) without knowing the name of the song, such as if they overheard it somewhere such as on radio or in a club. Song lyrics are also not acceptable to paste into Wikipedia articles due to copyright concerns, so "not mentioned in the article" isn't something that can be fixed. Randi Moth (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Neutral – The wrong capitalisation of "Poland" makes it much less plausible as a search term, since I took the wok to Poland already exists. I'm not entirely certain whether it's implausible enough to delete, however. Randi Moth (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Draft:All of the Girls ==== Draft:All of the Girls → Lover (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure why a draft is redirected to an unrelated article... This should be a quick delete imo. Ippantekina (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete. Per the edit histories of this page and All of the Girls, any content at the nominated redirect's title is and has always been a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Wikipedia:Digits ==== Wikipedia:Digits → Project Digits  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Implausible CNR from Wikipedia to article namespace. Strangely, the redirect page uses the DISPLAYTITLE magic word in order to display "Project: Digits". I don't know what purpose this redirect serves, but in the absence of a valid rationale it should either be deleted or retargeted to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Grouping of digits. I have a slight preference for the latter however, as the differently capitalised redirect Wikipedia:DIGITS also points to that section. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete per nom in the absence of a valid rationale. Jay 💬 13:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Don't mind my Delete, if the majority preference is to retarget. Jay 💬 05:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: "Project:" in a page title is parsed as "Wikipedia:", so Project: Digits resolves to Wikipedia:Digits. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Ok, you gave a reasoning for the redirect, which while I find unconvincing, would have been enough to make me withdraw the nomination. However, Jay has already commented "Delete" so I can no longer do it. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Per Paul above and from the precedent from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30#Wikipedia:ALF which dealt with a similar Project: redirect issue. TartarTorte 13:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) That could be the case if "Project Digits" is also referred to as "Project: Digits" (with the colon). But is that the case? Project Mersh / Project Destiny have a hatnote saying The correct title of this article is Project: Mersh. The omission of the colon is due to technical restrictions. Not so at Digits. Jay 💬 14:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ...y'know that's a really good point I had completely blanked on. Gonna strike vote in favor of retarget. Got so distracted by the potential technical glitch that the lack of usage with a colon eluded me. TartarTorte 19:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per nom (preferred over deletion) to match the capitalized shortcut. I see no evidence that the subject of the article is known by the title with a colon: the article and all of the sources in it refer to it as "Project Digits" without a colon. Page views don't suggest it's being used that way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per Ivanvector, as I too cannot find any evidence of any of the various "project digits" that Google tells me exist(ed) are referred to with the colon. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per Ivanvector. As the creator of this redirect almost 3 years ago, I have no idea what I was thinking at the time. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Humor (funny) ==== Humor (funny) → Humour  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] A {{R from move}} that has been the target page's title for 7 minutes. Implausible disambiguator, unlikely to be useful. Randi Moth (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  I suppose it's a plausible disambiguator as the word humor can also mean "mood" (as in "She was in an ill humor"). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Mr. Granger, wikt:humour can also mean fumes and bodily fluids. -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Puasa ==== Puasa → Ramadan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Puasa is not the alternative language for Ramadan. Ramadan is the month in the Islamic calendar, while Puasa is "fasting" in Malay. While Malayans and Indonesians sometimes refer to "Ramadan" as "fasting month" that didn't make Puasa an alternative language. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  I created the redirect because on the Ramadan page it says it in the "Also called" part of the infobox. If that is incorrect, then I'd understand if it's deleted. greyzxq talk 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Comment. Very few of the results google is giving me are in English, which makes finding how the term is used in English tricky, and what I have found is not definitive one way or the other but [32] does back up the redirect's current target. Hari raya puasa redirects to Eid al-Fitr, and that seems correct. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. While it's mentioned in the article, I don't think that means there should be a redirect. WP:RLOTE indicates that a redirect from a foreign language should have special signifance for the area where that language is spoken. Ramadan has a global scope, not a regional one so I don't think that is the case here. Additionally, while Islam is the majority religion in Malaysia and Indonesia, I don't think that in itself is enough to establish special affinity. Catholicism is the majority religion in Poland, even more so than Islam in Malaysia or Indonesia (if "religion in..." articles on Wikipedia are to be believed), yet Wielki post does not redirect to Lent (despite being mentioned in the article) nor should it. In this case I think it's better to allow uninhibited searching. – Scyrme (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nominator, but not per WP:RLOTE. "Puasa" is part of Malaysian English [33], in particular as part of the phrase buka puasa (iftar) [34]. But the word "puasa" alone is kind of a WP:PTM: too vague to tell whether someone is trying to find "bulan puasa" i.e. Ramadan, or fasting in Islam. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Envrionment Green Party of Kenya ==== Envrionment Green Party of Kenya → Mazingira Green Party of Kenya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Unlikely typo of Environment Green Party of Kenya, Envrionment does not exist either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Deltee [sic] per nom. Duckmather (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Bangkok 12th district ==== Bangkok 12th district → 2011 Thai general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Bangkok 11th district → 2011 Thai general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]Electoral districts in Thailand have changed numbers with every recent election, so the 12th district in one election has no relation whatsoever to the 12th district in the next. The titles in question were created as articles about districts in the 2011 election, which have since been merged/redirected to the 2011 Thai general election article. I just moved the page histories to Bangkok 12th district (2011) and Bangkok 11th district (2011). The undisambiguated names are confusing redirects and should be deleted, as there are no existing articles to disambiguate to or create set indices for. Paul_012 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== ASDFGH ==== ASDFGH → QWERTY  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] There is no value in creating redirects for every single combination of letters formed from the rows of a Qwerty keyboard. This isn't even a full row, so there's especially no reason to keep it. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)  Would a retarget to Keysmash be helpful or is that a stretch? – Scyrme (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC) A stretch, but given how often the WP community votes to keep redirects just because they might be useful (and of course WP:CHEAP), I would at least rather see this retargeted to the article you brought up than left alone. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) As far as I can ascertain this does not seem to be an alternative name of QWERTY as the creator asserts, but I am happy to be proved wrong on that front. Keysmash does mention similar terms, but from a look about it seems that this string is more notably associated with passwords. Therefore retarget to Password_strength#Examples_of_weak_passwords where this specific string is mentioned. I'm of the disposition that the reader searching this up is bored and does not know what to do, so leading them to a hopefully interesting article is what we should do here. So for this highly unconventional reason I'm slightly opposed to deletion in this particular instance. J947 † edits 04:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC) When I looked about (searching "ASDFGH" with quotes) I only found references to keysmashes. What did you search to get weak passwords instead? Did you only use Wikipedia's own search engine instead of an external search engine? – Scyrme (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Most articles in the News tab are about passwords. J947 † edits 18:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Just to note that there is also Asdfghjkl, Asdfghjkl; (redirects elsewhere), and ZXCVBNM, which are all similar in some form to the ASDFGH redirect.  (Should these be looked into now or maybe later down the road?)  --Super Goku V (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) No, those are the full row unlike this nomination which says This isn't even a full row. Jay 💬 14:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Weak Delete: I doubt anyone typing in ASDFGH is actually looking for keysmash, but I don't think retargeting to Password strength#Examples of weak passwords will do much good either. Either delete or keep at current target. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Weak delete per Edward-Woodrow. signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 10:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. If you tried to type QWERTY but were off by one row, you'd end up with ASDFGH. I don't see how it could refer to anything else, so it's not ambiguous or confusing. It seems to be used often enough for WP:RFD#K5 to apply. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Why couldn't it refer to keysmash or to a weak password (both mentioned above)? Keysmashes are sometimes emphatically capitalised, and the 'examples of weak passwords' section linked by J947 lists this exact sequence (although not in this exact case, and admittedly it also lists "qwerty"). – Scyrme (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC) It could refer to keysmash, but you really could make that argument for literally any combination of letters. Here's mine: 'wat4bmhi1. Surprisingly, no rdirct thr. I also sm to hav brokn my E ky. Ivanvctor (Talk/dits) 18:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keysmashes aren't always literally random smashes. Letters from the home row, even in their standard order (at least for the first few letters of the row), are especially common. This fact happens to be noted in the article. – Scyrme (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note that this, as well as the two mentioned by @Super Goku V, are also rows on the QWERTZ keyboard layout. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== SHABIR AHMED ==== SHABIR AHMED → List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Without justification as to why the subject of this redirect might have a special affinity toward ALL CAPS, this is ambiguous with the many other Shabir Ahmeds of the en.wp world. J947 † edits 05:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Weak disambiguate if possible. However, I can see this may be difficult and so I am also fine with deletion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC) DELETE due to being in all-caps. There's already a disambiguation page at Shabbir Ahmed (in fact, I added a large number of people to that page today; there may be duplicates, but without further sourcing it's hard to say). I would also weakly support redirecting to Shabbir Ahmed, although the all caps is kind of unnatural. Duckmather (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 16#((Vakhidov)) Sobit (Abdumukit) Valikhonovich * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Right, that makes sense. Keep as nom. J947 † edits 02:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Rules of the Senate ==== Rules of the Senate → Standing Rules of the United States Senate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Just bringing this up here for discussion: does this term unambiguously refer to the rules of the U.S. Senate? J947 † edits 05:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete - besides the target there are, at least, Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XIX, United States Senate Committee on Rules, and Philippine Senate Committee on Rules, found in a few pages of search results, as well as numerous articles which contain the phrase "Rules of the Senate" with that exact capitalization. There's also Parliamentary procedure (the target of Robert's Rules of Order), with a general overview of the concept but not discussing Senates specificaly. I think search results are better here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Oops, that's Rules of order, not Robert's Rules. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Since there are so many rules systems in various senates, and since I fail to see how the U.S.' is the primary topic, I would suggest disambiguation. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate. The fact that we have several articles on this, none of which are clearly WP:PTOPIC, means that a dab might be warranted for navigational purposes. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   === March 23 ===   ==== Europe route Ennn ====   ==== Rooftop swimming pool ==== Rooftop swimming pool → Swimming pool  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Roof top swimming pool → Swimming pool  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Rooftop pool → Swimming pool#Private pools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Roof top pool → Swimming pool  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] It's a bit of a WP:SURPRISE that this topic is not identified or defined at the target. The only place in the article where it is mentioned is in a file caption for an image displayed in Swimming pool#Dimensions, and that is all. This subject seems notable enough where it should either have a section dedicated to it in the target article, or be a standalone article/subject in itself. In other words, delete these per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete per WP:REDLINK per nom. Sensible approach. The target has no information on rooftop pools, although it lists many other types of pool. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) To expand: a rooftop pool is not just a pool that is put on top of a roof. It's an engineering feat to hold that much water at elevation, and I'm sure there's enough information out there about their development and overcoming the structural challenges that at least a subsection could be written. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Beach entry ==== Beach entry → Swimming pool#Zero-entry swimming pools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Pretty sure this concept isn't exclusive to pools. Maybe even ... the entry to an actual beach? Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Weak keep - I agree with nom's points, but in my experience living on an island surrounded by beaches the terms are typically "beach access", or just "shore", while "beach entry" is a specific type of pool according to the article. Hatnotes could work, though I'm not sure which direction is appropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. 100% of the first six pages (at least) of google results for "beach entry" -wikipedia are for pools, changing the search term to "beach entry" -pool -wikipedia finds (on the first three pages) entry prices and or entry tickets for beaches (both specific beaches and the general concept of charging for entry to a beach), Blackpool Pleasure Beach and car parks named after beaches; "life's a beach" entry mats (doormat), a design of entry door named "Laguna Beach", and access points to various specific beaches. Almost all of these are not encyclopaedic and/or so ambiguous as to be useless search terms. The concept of private access to beaches is encyclopaedic, and is covered at Beach#Restrictions on access but at most this should be a hatnote from the article about the swimming pool type (the overwhelming primary topic) - and even then I'm not completely convinced of its utility (it's certainly not the search term I would use). Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Start Publishing ==== Start Publishing → Simon & Schuster  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The redirect was blanked by Shortride (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "Start is a distribution client, not a subsidiary". That does make sense. Moreover, Start Publishing is only mentioned very briefly, and any reader looking for information on Start Publishing will be disappointed if redirected to Simon & Schuster. Pichpich (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)  Errr. They'll be more disappointed if they are faced with a red link, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Keep - the business arrangement doesn't matter. We have very little information on Start Publishing on Wikipedia, but what little there is is located at this target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. It's a reasonable place to point to, given that the coverage is at that page (even if it is relatively light in nature). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Zero-entry ==== Zero-entry → Swimming pool#Zero-entry swimming pools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Zero entry → Swimming pool#Zero-entry swimming pools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Per third party search engines, the concept of "zero-entry" is not exclusive to pools. Apparently, this refers to the lack of a set of stairs leading to/from a different flat elevation, which can also apply to certain doorways or showers/bathtubs. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Weak disambig. The most common meaning seems to be the swimming pool type (an exact synonym for "beach entry", discussed above) but not to the extent of being clear primary topic. It is also used as a synonym for generic step-free access using shallow gradients, for things that have no entry cost (including loans) and zero entry mining (mechanised to the extent that humans do not need to enter the mine). However I'm not sure to what extent the latter two are just partial title matches, and we don't seem to have any content about the mining use anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Social Rockstar ==== Social Rockstar → Rock Star  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] An old redirect from a blanked extremely short-lived article in 2009. This redirect is no longer required or helpful, if it ever was. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)  Weak retarget to Internet celebrity: It seems that this is intending to refer to Internet celebrities, but also, there doesn't seem to be a ton of term usage and deletion would be fine as well. TartarTorte 12:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. Searches point mostly to Rockstar Games Social Club but it is not a term used there to refer to its members. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Aiplane ==== Aiplane → Airplane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Unlikely misspelling. In addition, there is a possibility with the increasingly popularity of the subject of Artificial intelligence (AI), someone could be searching this spelling for planes controlled by AI. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Support HopsonRoad (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Comment typos by omission are a very common form of typo. However, for this typo, I agree delete since it engenders confusion with artificial intelligence -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Support The case for the redirect from misspelling aiplane is no greater than for redirects from airlane, airpane, airplne, airplae etc. Dolphin (t) 06:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Yungur language ==== Yungur language → Bena language (Adamawa)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Apparently this is also an alternative name of Voro language (Adamawa). 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget to Bena–Mboi languages: Yungur appears to be an alternate name for this language branch, of which both Bena and Yoro are a part, as well as a number of others which are also linked from there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Leave as is. It appears that this is an old name applied to Bena, with only Voro also occasionally called that, and we have a hat link. E.g. the ISO code is [yun], and Glottolog calls Bena and Voro together "Yungur-Voro", and according to Blench the derivatives Yangur and Yungirba are specifically Bena. Note also that "Bena" is also used for Voro. That is, the two languages are not always distinguished. It's not uncommon for a language name to spill over onto a closely related lect, esp. if it's sometimes considered a dialect of the same language or if the first language is regionally dominant and so taken as the default. So it would seem that [yun] is both "Bena proper" and "Yungur proper", with clarification needed if we mean Voro. In fact, it would seem that "Bena" is more ambiguous than "Yungur", as according to Blench it's also used for the next closest language, Lala.Yes, Yungur is also a label for the branch, which is why Yungur languages plural is a rd there. But that's a common situation on WP and for the sg I think the hat note is sufficient. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per kwami. – Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== 2022–23 Schleswig-Holstein-Liga ==== 2022–23 Schleswig-Holstein-Liga → 2022–23 Oberliga Schleswig-Holstein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete this redirect as anachronistic because the erstwhile Schleswig-Holstein-Liga is now the Oberliga Schleswig-Holstein since the 2017–18 season. Santiago Claudio (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Weak keep but fix the double redirect - the league was known as Schleswig-Holstein-Liga until 2017, it's plausible a reader may look for the article under the former name. However, page views provide little evidence for this actually happening. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== All of the Girls ==== All of the Girls → Lover (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Technically this is supposed to redirect to "All of the Girls You Loved Before", which doesn't make sense because "All of the Girls" redirect is misleading as a title. I suggest deleting this redirect. Ippantekina (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  I created "All of the Girls" initially because the song's title when it was first leaked, but after reading your arguments, I agree with the redirect's deletion. Gained (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Tards ==== Tards → wiktionary:Special:Search/tards  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." A redirect for the plural of an informal version of an insult. No idea why this would belong on Wikipedia Fram (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete. Search results for "tards" give fine results (including result for the Wiktionary entry). Skynxnex (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. I read those pages listed above, and now I can conclude that search is efficient enough. AKK700 19:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per WP:RFD#D1. This is perhaps the most egregious D1 I've seen - most are just strange results but this one literally blocks the search engine in favour of a sister project's search. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC) It actually takes you direct to wikt:tards rather than Wiktionary's search. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC) What an odd way for the URL to work. Thanks for pointing that out, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to List of disability-related terms with negative connotations#T, where Tard is listed (title redirects to Tard, Hungary, but there is a Wiktionary redirect for "tard" in that list), per WP:RNEUTRAL. As far as I can tell, searching for "tards" on English Wikipedia does not list intellectual disability in the results, so readers are not finding relevant information if this is deleted. It's not an ideal search term, but we should still handle it. Struck my earlier delete !vote as I don't want my clueless misunderstanding to be construed as a personal attack, which I did not intend. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) There's also retard (pejorative), but I think the list is better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per Ivanvector. A redirect to a sister project is not aligned with WP:SSRT, as this is not a commonly wikified word nor a page that has been repeatedly re-created. However, it makes sense to redirect from the plural to the singular in the appropriate list. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Redirects from stars in Libra ==== Eta Librae → Libra (constellation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Iota2 Librae → Libra (constellation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Nu Librae → Libra (constellation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Omicron Librae → Libra (constellation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Xi1 Librae → Libra (constellation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Xi2 Librae → Libra (constellation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Six Bayer stars that redirect to the main constellation page instead of List of stars in Libra (four more exist as redirects to the set index Zeta Librae). No attempt has been made to determine if any of these meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; if they do, the recommended solution is to delete per WP:REDLINK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget all to List of stars in Libra where they are all mentioned. Just a note that I am the creator of Eta Librae. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget as proposed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per above. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Beaners ==== Beaners → Biggby Coffee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Suggest retargeting to Beaner, like most plurals. The former name of the coffee chain was Beaner's Coffee with the apostrophe on the possessive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per nom. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Support per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Support or at least point to the DAB per WP:PLURALPT. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === March 22 ===   ==== YOU-CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 ==== YOU-CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 → CAN-SPAM Act of 2003  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Appears to be a joke redirect of a non-existent name; the actual name is an acronym so the "YOU" in this redirect title is pointless and made-up. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)  The name is common in anti-spam circles and reflects the facts that CAN-SPAM does not actually outlaw spam CAN-SPAM nullifies state laws that actually did outlaw spam The law is the result of DMA lobbying and was carefully crafted to not do what the title promised. That, alas, is very common in US legislation. NB: I'm not claiming that other countries are better, just that I lack the data to do a comparison. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. Not used in popular media to refer to this act. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 09:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Keep – The "You-Can-Spam" name is mentioned in the article. The fact that the "YOU" isn't an acronym is obviously irrelevant and not the point of the joke. A Google search will reveal that it is commonly used, perhaps not with "of 2003" afterwards, but the redirect isn't confusing, ambiguous or causing any problems. MClay1 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Mclay1. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Mclay1. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Delete because of the 2003 afterwards per MClay1. Using the joke along with the year attempts to pass this off as a genuine act name. We already have YOU-CAN-SPAM Act and You-Can-Spam Act to support the "YOU". Jay 💬 07:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: One more go…Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Move to "You-Can-Spam" or something like that per Jay. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Mr. Metz and MClay1, and per WP:RNEUTRAL. It clearly is a name used to refer to the act, even if it's incorrect, and the article explains the use of the incorrect name as criticism. Moving redirects is generally pointless, and I'm not convinced that adding the year confers legitimacy, and even if it did, refer back to RNEUTRAL. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. I do see versions of this name in sources on Google Books. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom ==== Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom → Mary of Teck  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete. Misleading, wrong information.  Obviously prone to confuse laypersons with Queen Mary of England, aka Mary I of England.  An unqualified “Queen”, devoid of reference to her King, implies a Queen Regnant.  Redirect was created only to make a point, not for any utility, and this is not ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)  Retargeting to a dab page, or other pages, only makes matters worse.  More hatnotes makes more clutter on in the prime real estate of articles.  Anyone entering the exact text into the search box is perfectly well served by the internal search function.  No one should be linking this string, because it is a poor way to refer to the article, and should not be encouraged as a recommended option, which is what I guess is the only reasonable motivation to create the redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Delete. Not an entry to Mary of Teck any normal person would ever use. Whether the redirect was created to make a point I leave to others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep There has been only one Queen Mary who has been Queen of the United Kingdom and that's Mary, wife of George V. Listing other redirects here is pointless. And a queen consort is a queen just as a queen regnant is a queen, or a queen dowager is a queen. There's no such rule that states queens consort or dowager are "unqualified" queens as the nominator is implying here. The only difference is in their rank. Regnant, consort, dowager, regent are noun adjuncts, defining a queen's rank. And "Queen of the United Kingdom", "Queen of England", "Queen of France", etc. do not imply that the given queen is necessarily queen regnant. We have Mary, Queen of Scots, Mary, Queen of Hungary, and Maria, Queen of Sicily who were queens regnant. On the other hand we have Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary, Marie of Brabant, Queen of France, Marie of Lusignan, Queen of Aragon, Marie of Luxembourg, Queen of France, Maria of Portugal, Queen of Castile, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Castile, Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal, Mary Tudor, Queen of France, Elizabeth of Sicily, Queen of Hungary, Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, Elisabeth of Austria, Queen of France, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Germany, Elisabeth of Carinthia, Queen of the Romans, Elizabeth of Hungary, Queen of Serbia, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of the Belgians, etc. all of whom were queens consort. And the accusation that the redirect was "created only to make a point" is baseless and untrue. This is a name that has been used in different forms by other sources, including the Royal Collection Trust that calls her Queen Mary of the United Kingdom. And there's no point that needs to be made anyway. It's like saying Sonja, Queen of Norway should not exist as a redirect because the creator was trying to make a point! Keivan.fTalk 05:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Just who is going to realistically type in the search box "Mary <comma> Queen of the United Kingdom"? I don't think anyone, and we don't create redirects just to create one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC) That is an assumption though. Would someone type Sonja, Queen of Norway or Rania, Queen of Jordan, to search for those queens? Maybe yes, maybe not. Yet no one can say they are not useful. As long as the redirect is accurate and helpful there's no reason that it should not remain. And given the fact that a source like Encyclopædia Britannica has the words "queen of Great Britain" right under Mary's name there might be people who could search for May, Queen of Great Britain/the United Kingdom/the UK and that is what a redirect is for; to assist with finding a target. Keivan.fTalk 06:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC) "Name <comma> title <"of"> place" is a grammatically correct and entirely normal way to refer to royalty/nobility, and this is reinforced by the many articles with titles in exactly that format which set a predictable pattern that readers are likely to follow when searching. Seems entirely plausible to me and I'm surprised you think otherwise. – Scyrme (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC) In response to one of the comments above, the string is fine and it is not a poor way to refer to the article because in no way it implies that she was a queen regnant which is what the core of the nominator's issue with this redirect is. Not to mention that the format has been used by outside sources. It has nothing to do with putting forth a single format as a "recommended" option either. People can choose what format to use based on the flow of the article. The whole argument that each queen consort should have the word "consort" attached to their title as an adjunct or "qualifier" does not hold up. We have no such rule and countless redirects and outside material prove that. Sonja Haraldsen is the queen consort of Norway. Based on that logic, she should not be referred to as Sonja, Queen of Norway, but I guess it is not okay to refer to her as Queen Sonja of Norway either due to the fact that the latter format just like the first one does not make it clear whether she is a queen consort or queen regnant. And frankly, it doesn't matter. She is simply The Queen of Norway just as Mary was simply The Queen of the United Kingdom. That's what their actual titles are. And an article title or redirect is always used in a text with the necessary context provided so the chances of anyone mistaking these women for queens regnant is slim. Keivan.fTalk 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per SmokeyJoe. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Unlikely search term. If kept, redirect to Queen Mary as an incomplete disambiguation from other Queen Marys of England. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Queen Mary disambiguation page. MClay1 (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Keivan.f. It's unambiguous (Mary I was never Queen of the United Kingdom) and redirects are cheap. -  Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to the disambiguation page. This is cheap, but it is also ambiguous as to whether someone is searching for a queen consort not commonly known by this name or a much more widely known queen regnant but are mistaken about her domain. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Mary of England (n.b.: not Queen Mary). I'd normally advocate for a straight keep in such an instance, but I'm concerned about reading navigability from Mary of Teck to Mary I or Mary II, which are similarly common I'd imagine. A hatnote on Mary of Teck would be rarely-used (like this redirect: rarely-used but still helpful enough). Therefore I'll weakly opt for the cowardly dab target over the correct target. J947 † edits 21:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. Per Keivan.f and Presidentman. Minor errors and misconceptions like this should be corrected not humoured as equally valid targets. "...of England" is unambiguously wrong, and retargets misleading. An extra hatnote with {{distinguish}} (Not to be confused with...) pointing to the disambiguation page is sufficient to help someone misinformed and looking for someone else. – Scyrme (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Another option for a hatnote could {{redirect}} ("Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" redirects here. For "Mary, Queen of England", see Mary of England.). I'm not sure whether the wording given by "distinguish" or "redirect" would be more helpful. Perhaps the best option would be to use {{hatnote}} to write a custom one that combines the best of both. Something like: "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" redirects here. Not to be confused with Mary, Queen of England. – Scyrme (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete there was Mary II of England who was Queen of Scotland and England and Ireland -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)The United Kingdom did not exist during Mary II's reign. Keivan.fTalk 17:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Not a useful redirect. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Hopelessly misleading title.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC) How is an accurate description of Mary of Teck hopelessly misleading? – Scyrme (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I guess Mary, Queen of Scotland is misleading as well? In fact it would be even more misleading by that logic since there were other queens of Scotland named Mary, albeit they were queens by virtue of marriage. And what is even misleading here? Mary of Teck was Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of George V. Mary I and Mary II were not queens of the United Kingdom, and as an encyclopedia we should not spread incorrect information by retargeting this redirect IMO. It's like changing the target for Elizabeth, Queen of England, or Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom, arguing that people might think Elizabeth II was Queen of England or that Elizabeth I was Queen of the United Kingdom. Yes, they might, and it is an encyclopedia's job to correct them not to mislead them, and a hatnote would be sufficient for that purpose. And as Scyrme said, the format "Name <comma> Title of Place" is an entirely common and valid format on Wikipedia. Not to mention multiple sources that describe Mary of Teck as Queen of the United Kingdom/Great Britain. Keivan.fTalk 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) "mary of teck was queen of the united kingdom" is only correct if George V is mentioned in the same sentence. Standing alone, it is incorrect because it implies Queen regnant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Searching around en.wp demonstrates rapidly that a Queen should not be automatically assumed to be queen regnant. The more I think about this the more surprised I am that you would think not that it is slightly misleading (which it is), but that it is incorrect – this might well be much more obvious to people living in a monarchy (assuming you are from the U.S.), who are the significant proportion of readers searching this phrase. J947 † edits 08:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC) “Should not” is irrelevant compared to “is”.  I am thinking only of written references to last queens, not current usage anywhere.  When referring to an historical queen, only queens regnant are introduced simply as queen.  Queens consort are introduced with reference to their king. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Not necessarily. Here's the grave of Catherine of Aragon describing her as Katharine, Queen of England, devoid of any reference to Henry VIII. And Catherine of England even redirects to her page which is a format mostly used for monarchs (e.g. Elizabeth of Russia), but I doubt any reader would find it confusing after reading the first few words of the article. So no, in a real word setting no one would assume that "Queen of [Place]" is a queen regnant. Keivan.fTalk 13:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Catherine if Aragon is an unusual case.  In her lifetime, her status as legal wife of Henry was in dispute, by herself, her followers, and during the rule of her daughter, Queen Mary, Catherine’s status as legal wife connected to recognition of Mary’s claim to inherit. At the time of her funeral, Henry was the long ruling and uncontested King.  Contrary to the king’s instructions, Catherine styled herself as Queen, as did her supporters, and funeral and burial of her as Queen, not Dowager Princess of Wales, was a political statement, during the lifetime of the King.  My point has been, Queen consorts are styled queen, unqualified, during their lifetime, and shortly after, but when time passes, their are either noted as Queen consort, or introduced with mention of their King.  The example dates from soon after her death and during the rule of Henry.  The Catherine of Aragon example does not generalise to all queen consorts. Your redirect fails to note either “consort” or that her position derived from George V.  Why did you create this redirect?  It seems part of a current campaign to deny that the current queen is style with “consort”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Catherine of Aragon was "Queen of England" during her marriage, and so were Henry VIII's other five wives. All six of them have been described as such. This has nothing to do with making a political statement. In fact, Catherine's grave was upgraded during George V's reign by his wife Queen Mary. And I think she as a princess and then as a queen had a better idea than either you or me of how a queen consort should be described. My point has been, Queen consorts are styled queen, unqualified, during their lifetime. I'm afraid this is WP:OR. Never in my life I have seen a queen consort being described as an "unqualified" queen. This is something that you have entirely come up with. And your allegations of a current campaign to deny that the current queen is style [sic] with “consort” are unfounded. This has nothing to do with Camilla and her situation, a divorcee who was initially going to be styled princess consort. She is the exception here, not Mary who like all the other queens consort was simply called "The Queen" (check this and all the other entries on previous queens on the Government's London Gazette). You're making connections left, right and center when none actually exist. Do sources describe Mary as Queen of the United Kingdom/Great Britain? Yes, they do. Have there been any other queens of the United Kingdom (regnant or consort) named Mary? No. Are there any sources that suggest she and thousands of other queens consort were not really queens? No, none exists. The fact that they hold the title by virtue of marriage does not make their position unreal. It's like saying Catherine, Princess of Wales is an not really Princess of Wales since she holds the title by virtue of marriage, so she should be called "Princess Consort of Wales". And upon seeing the phrase "Queen of [Place]" no one assumes that the woman is a queen regnant. In fact, when thinking of a global audience, one could easily see that in many countries queens and empresses have been mostly wives of monarchs, and it's the queens regnant that are rare. Keivan.fTalk 22:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @Keivan.f: You've misunderstood. "Unqualified" means without an adjective or additional description (a qualifier) like "consort" or "regnant". – Scyrme (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC) @Scyrme: I see. Thanks for the clarification. My mind was preoccupied with his comment here where he stated Mary was never a real queen, only a Queen consort and my brain made a connection between that statement and this one. Thus, I thought by unqualified he meant unreal. In any case my response stands. Consort and regnant are simply noun adjuncts defining the word "Queen". It's not as if one rank is the real deal and the other one doesn't count. Keivan.fTalk 00:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Common English is lacking.  Queen can mean two different things, Queen Regnant, and Queen Consort. The two are different, with the very clear hard line distinction, despite the usage of “Queen” for both. You seem to be arguing that no one could be confused because everyone knows the UK has had no Queens Regnant named Mary? I ask again, why did you create this redirect?  Who might it help? - SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Distinction is not always required. Empress Suiko was empress regnant of Japan. Masako, Empress of Japan is the current empress consort of Japan. They can both be described as "Empress of Japan" even though their rank is different. You seem to be arguing that no one could be confused because everyone knows the UK has had no Queens Regnant named Mary? I never said that. I said the correct target for the redirect would be Mary of Teck, because she has been the only queen (regnant or consort) to ever be Queen of the United Kingdom. Just as Charles, King of the United Kingdom rightly redirects to Charles III because there have been no other kings of the United Kingdom named Charles. The issue of confusion with other queens regnant or consort can be addressed with a hatnote. I ask again, why did you create this redirect? Because she has been described as Queen of the United Kingdom in various different sources, and anyone familiar with Wikipedia knows that [Name] <comma> [Title] of [Place] is a format we commonly use here. I listed dozens of articles and redirects with the exact same format. And unlike what you were trying to suggest it is not part of a current campaign to alter Camilla's title or anything like that. I really doubt a redirect on Wikipedia would influence the palace's decisions. Keivan.fTalk 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Most of the redirects you listed were correct longer forms, of the form Mary of Teck, Queen of the United Kingdom.  The longer form are not likely to confuse.  Mixed short form / long form, like Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom, are likely to confuse, are confusing, are are weird, and are more suitable for a trivia question than a redirect inviting other users to make use of. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Those examples you are referring to are of articles titles, which to some extent have to adhere to WP:CONSORTS. That pattern should not necessarily be followed for redirects and in fact it has not been followed. As an example, we have Sonja, Queen of Norway as a redirect not Sonja Haraldsen, Queen of Norway. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. Mary was the only Queen of the United Kingdom by her name. Confusion with Mary I or II of England is highly unlikely. While the format "Name, Queen of X" may indicate a Queen regnant under WP:NCROY, (eg. Anne, Queen of Great Britain, apart from that it does not have to.--Estar8806 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Why do you think confusion is "highly unlikely" given that there is widespread confusion between England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom for present-day, e.g. there are many sources describing Charles III has "King of Great Britain", including the Foreign Ministry of Oman and Brussels Times. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC) And yet Charles, King of the United Kingdom rightly redirects to Charles III, not to Charles II of England or Charles I of England. And I don't believe we need to change that because some website mistakenly describes him as king of Great Britain. Keivan.fTalk 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC) That redirect exists because Charles III is unquestionably the primary topic for that search term and so it's irrelevant here. My point is that the assertion that nobody will confuse a queen of the United Kingdom with a queen of Great Britain is demonstrably false. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) If people may get confused between the UK and Great Britain, then based on that logic they can confuse the UK with England as well, which means that Charles can also be confused with his predecessors. In any case, it's not an issue that a hatnote cannot solve. And I'm not vehemently opposed to regathering if there's a consensus for that, but I'm certainly against deletion. Keivan.fTalk 23:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Regarding the hatnote, which would you prefer of the ones I suggested above (right under my "keep" recommendation)? – Scyrme (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Honestly, I think both of them are fine. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) More hatnotes to paper of the the problems of not-helpful unwanted redirects, is a worse option to “delete”.  Not every technically correct term should be created as a redirect. If there was no good reason to create it, delete it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC) This isn't just a hypothetical "technically correct" description, it's one that has been used outside Wikipedia, examples of which can be found by searching the phrase on Google Books. eg. Royalty Who Wait (2001) which lists her as "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" in its index. It's not implausible that someone would describe her in this way (objectively, they already have), and therefore not implausible that someone would find this redirect helpful. Of-course, I'm sure you'd rather people use the search bar instead; we should probably just agree to disagree about whether it is "helpful". – Scyrme (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I know that. The point is context. It is not normal to refer to a Queen consort as an unqualified queen unless it is already in the context of the king, unless the king is already introduced or will be in the same breath. An index isn’t much of a precedent. The problem with this redirect is that it invites standalone use, and it’s prone to confuse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC) It doesn't seem likely to me that someone would use this as a standalone link in an article where the context doesn't make clear which "Mary" is the "Queen of the United Kingdom" (such as by naming the relevant King or establishing the year/century). Even if it were used without any additional context, the link itself would make it clear which "Mary" is the relevant one (just click or hover). If the phrase "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" were linked in the wrong context, the link would make it easier to find/notice the mistake and fix it, since either Mary, Queen of England, should not be referred to as "Queen of the United Kingdom" in any article. It's more likely such a mistake would be missed if the text were not linked. If this is retargetted rather than kept, then any unintentional use of the link would be discouraged. The link would be likely to get replaced by a more specific one which would resolve any potential confusion. – Scyrme (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Context is important within an article, but it's not as if someone is going to see "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" and say, oh she must have been a queen regnant then. Based on that logic we should not use Queen Mathilde of Belgium anywhere in a prose alone, because there's nothing in that name that suggests to me that the woman is a queen consort. The whole "Queen [Name] of [Place]" is a format entirely made up by Wikipedia for consorts. Also, I doubt anyone would support throwing the word "consort" as a qualifier into Mathilde's name because she's simply Queen of the Belgians or "The Queen" just like Mary was simply "The Queen" with no adjuncts or qualifiers attached to her title. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The "(title) name of place"/"name(, title) of place" format isn't made up by Wikipedia, and isn't used exclusively for consorts. The name-title-place format is used for royalty and nobility in general. John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, for example, follows "name <comma> title <of> place". It's used on Wikipedia because it's used in English in general. – Scyrme (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC) “Based on that logic we should” One of the points of logic is that long dead queen consorts are referred to differently to when they were living, or recently deceased. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The Earl of Shrewsbury's article has the format "[Name] [Surname], [Title] of [Place]". In that sense it would be similar to something like Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Queen of the United Kingdom. Not comparable in this instance. One of the points of logic is that long dead queen consorts are referred to differently to when they were living, or recently deceased. In cases when an article title needs to be chosen, yes, that is a "consideration", but there are exceptions such as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother who has been dead for 21 years. Also, that is not ground for deleting redirects. For example, should we delete Masako, Empress of Japan once she's deceased? I don't think so. Keivan.fTalk 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC) That the name of the Earl includes his surname is irrelevant to the point, and it doesn't help your case to insist that it matters. It does not help to argue that the format is exclusive to Wikipedia; the argument to keep the redirect is stronger if the format is used widely both on and off Wikipedia (a fact that happens to be true), as that makes it more plausible that someone would search for it. – Scyrme (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, Charles can be confused with his predecessors - that's the point. However, as the current king is very clearly the primary topic for the ambiguous terms they should lead to his articles. None of the queens are primary, it is equally likely that someone will be looking for the queen regnant or the queen consort, neither of whom are commonly known by this name, so should lead to disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Redirects to disambiguation pages are usually minor spelling variants, plurals/singulars, or differences in case, not completely different titles that might share the same target. Wouldn't it likely surprise readers searching "of the United Kingdom" to get redirected to a page titled "of England"? Even a reader mistaken about the domain of the Mary they're looking for is likely to know that "United Kingdom" and "England" are not synonymous. I think a hatnote is a more appropriate way to disambiguate here, since that would allow some clarification to provided to the reader (rather than dropping them onto a disambiguation page with an already bloated "see also" section). – Scyrme (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC) There are no shortage of examples where one disambiguation page disambiguates multiple terms, meaning that some people are redirected to a page that has a different title to their search term. The way this is handled is that the first sentence of the disambiguation page lists all the terms that are disambiguated, this means that the problem you allege is unavoidable with a redirect to a disambiguation page is neither a problem nor unavoidable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I didn't say anything about it being an "unavoidable" "problem". I asked a question. If you're confident that listing "of the United Kingdom" in the first sentence would be within the guidelines for disambiguation pages, then that's fine; I agree that explicitly adding it to the first sentence would mitigate any surprise. All the disambiguation page I've seen had a narrower range of variation, of the kind described at WP:DABCOMBINE. The combination you suggested isn't covered, but the guidelines aren't exhaustive; if you say there's a precedent, I believe you. My disagreement was based on retargetting to the disambiguation page in its current state, since neither you nor anyone else suggested modifying it. I can accept retargeting as a second preference, if this title is explicitly added to the first sentence and the link is raised out of "see also", assuming this does not contradict guidelines about disambiguation pages. – Scyrme (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Confusion is unlikely, perhaps not "highly" because, while you are correct in that Charles III is erroneously called "King of Great Britain" or "King of England", those are titles that were used by his predecessors. His predecessors were not called "Kings of the United Kingdom", because that title didn't exist. That may be worded a little poorly, so to get my point across, Elizabeth II of England redirects to Elizabeth II, but Mary I of the United Kingdom does not redirect to Mary I of England, because Mary I never would have been called Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom during her reign or has she been called by such a name since. Mary of Teck was the only Mary to be Queen of the United Kingdom. Estar8806 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Different disambiguation retarget targets have been suggested - Queen Mary and Mary of England, apart from the suggestion to add a hatnote at the current target.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 18:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)I've gone ahead an added the suggested hatnote to Mary of Teck, to make it clear what's being proposed. It can be replaced with a {{redirect}} or {{distinguish}} note if others would prefer something more concise. If this redirect gets retargeted, the hatnote can obviously be amended appropriately. (Or, of-course, removed if the redirect is deleted.) – Scyrme (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Your hatnote is a worse outcome.  Why would anyone land at Mary of Teck thinking they were getting Mary, Queen of England.  Because of this new redirect that no one will ever use. A featured article with almost 4000 views per day has an unnecessary hatnote, due to the existence of this redirect that helps who? SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC) A lot of editors who have responded to this evidently think confusion is plausible, in which case the hatnote provides helpful clarification. Unless you persuade them otherwise, the hatnote should remain so long as the redirect exists. To be clear, I'm fine with removing the hatnote if there is agreement that the redirect by itself would not cause confusion. As for whether anyone would use the redirect, that's a separate matter. – Scyrme (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Confusion is likely if they arrive at the page via a redirect, especially via it having been offered to them from the so called search box. Without the redirect, readers using the so called search box won’t be offered this title, and if the actually manually enter it in full they will get detailed search results. Using hatnotes to rescue confused readers helps them, but muddies that page header for the vast majority of readers of the page. The best solution is to not have redirects like this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - Mary of Teck is the only Mary to have been Queen of the United Kingdom. Nobody else in the entire history of the earth has ever been both named Mary and also Queen of the United Kingdom. She was formally and officially The Queen from George V's ascension until his death, and then formally and officially Queen Mary until her own death. Queen consort/dowager/mother are not formal titles, they're titles of courtesy or respect, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon who was formally titled Queen Mother to distinguish her from her daughter, Elizabeth II. The title of King is exclusively given to and reserved for the Sovereign (Albert and Philip were both princes) but the same is not true of Queen, there are many Queens who were not the Sovereign. There is no such thing as an "inferior" Queen, there are just Queens. A few are also Sovereign, but the fact that Mary of Teck was not is irrelevant to her royal title. There's no confusion here that can't be handled with hatnotes, but we will certainly introduce confusion by redirecting this to a disambiguation page for Queens of a predecessor realm. I don't understand the accusation that the redirect was created in bad faith and it also doesn't matter at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Adding: there have been ten Queens of the United Kingdom (counting Caroline of Ansbach who was Queen of Great Britain & Ireland, and excluding Camilla who hasn't yet been given the title). Three of those were also the Sovereign. Only one was named Mary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I agree the redirect is technically unambiguous, if you assume all readers are fluent with the technicalities of the changing names of England, Britain, UK, etc.  That’s not a good assumption. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC) It seems that this title had been used on Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge for many years before the redirect was created (as a piped link). No doubt Mary of Teck's title as Queen of the United Kingdom was used to distinguish her from her mother; using Mary of Teck directly would've been confusing. A similar title is used for her category on Commons (Category:Queen Mary of the United Kingdom). This similar variation has existed as a redirect on Wikipedia since 2006. (Queen Mary of the United Kingdom) I don't see any reason why moving the position of the word "Queen" would make this any less plausible. Contrary to the claims that no-one would ever use such a redirect, the stats for that redirect indicate that has been used fairly regularly. If people use Queen Mary of the United Kingdom, why not Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom?Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen Mary of the United Kingdom should point to the same target, so I'm against retargeting one but not the other. – Scyrme (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Thryduulf: You recommended retargeting, but didn't specify a target. Retarget to Queen Mary or Mary of England? What about Queen Mary of the United Kingdom, which has been a redirect to Mary of Teck since 2006 without problems? Shouldn't they point to the same place? – Scyrme (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Celia Homeford and Mclay1: You both said you would prefer retargeting to Queen Mary if this is retargeted, but this was before J947 suggested Mary of England. Do you still prefer Queen Mary? – Scyrme (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC) The mere fact that it was used on her mother's article without any objection shows that it is not a useless redirect. Thanks for bringing that up. And I also agree that both this redirect and "Queen Mary of the United Kingdom" should point to the same page and, if people are afraid of potential confusion, a hatnote can be added. That's how Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and Elizabeth of England have been handled. Keivan.fTalk 23:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC) @Scyrme I think Queen Mary is a better target. Redirecting to Mary of England would be misleading – the Queen Mary in question was not Queen of England, despite how some people refer to the Queen of the United Kingdom. Redirecting to the broadest target removes all arguments over that sort of thing, and all the Queen Marys from British history can be listed. MClay1 (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Anagenic ==== Anagenic → Anagenesis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Might also be referring to the Anagen phase (see wikt:anagenic). 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget to Anagen (or rather to Hair follicle as an {{avoided double redirect}}) and add a hatnote ({{redirect}}) pointing to anagenesis. Searching on Google scholar, it appears that Anagen is the primary topic, however, this adjective can refer to both. – Scyrme (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Should both Anagen and Anagenic specifically target the section Hair follicle § Anagen phase (which is where Anagen phase goes)? That section would probably be a better place for the hatnote I suggested rather than at the top of the article. – Scyrme (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate create a 2DAB as a no-primary situation for this adjective -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Why do you think there's no primary topic? My results on Google Scholar indicate that Anagen is the primary topic. Are you getting different results? – Scyrme (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC) See  Thryduulf 's response below -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Disambig. My search results are an almost 50:50 split down to the middle of page 2 when a company and a band start getting a few results, but of the two topics we have articles for the split remains pretty much even at least until the end of page 4. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Is that on normal search results? If so, shouldn't we favour usage in more reliable academic sources particularly given that these are both scientific topics? – Scyrme (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC) That is on normal search results. Given that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia aimed at lay people rather than subject experts, it is reasonable to presume that those without specific (relevant) scientific knowledge will form the most sizeable proportion of searchers. People searching for a topic on Google Scholar aren't looking for the same results as people searching the same topic on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate? No disambiguation has been drafted yet.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate. Casting the net a bit wider, but still aiming to look at usage in reliable sources, I tried searching on Google books, and it does seem that "anagenic" is roughly about as likely to be used alongside "anagen phase" as it as "anagenesis". I now agree that there isn't a conclusive primary topic. – Scyrme (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Dabify per Thryduulf's findings --Lenticel (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Al-Ġazawāt ==== Al-Ġazawāt → Early Muslim conquests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment I think that Al-Ġazawāt is a romanization of �االغزوات, which roughly translates to "invasions" ([35]) This history Fandom page seems to support that, but it cites off-web sources so I can't verify the claim (and its reliability is highly dubious, in any case, per WP:FANDOM) This paper also makes reference to the phrase, in connection to "to the stories of the memorable battles led by the prophet [translated]", as does this book, in connection to "conquering and marauding campaigns". I hope this makes the existence of the redirect somewhat clearer. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Edit: See also [36] for further clarification. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 09:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Strict rules ==== Strict rules → Rules of golf  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not an exclusively golf-related phrase, deletion seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete per nom. Based on an off-wiki conversation I was just having, Covid lockdown regulations were my first thought. Google search results are a complete mixed bag, featuring YouTube videos about strict rules for royal children, cast members on various TV and movies, public drunkenness in San Marino, food additives in Sweden, what not to put in a dishwasher, a random woman's family trip to Disneyland, Starbucks employees and gambling adverts in Australia - and that's before we even get to page 3. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC) This is a partial match for Strict rules, hard efforts and Strict rules of evidence. Could disambiguation be a viable option? While this could refer to many things, Wikipedia only needs to aid navigation to content that already exists rather than content that could hypothetically exist but doesn't. A comparable example would be Strict (disambiguation), which links to particular mathematics-related topics. There's also Stricture and Restriction, which cover a range of topics including some more common senses. To be clear, the question isn't rhetoical; I've not really decided yet. – Scyrme (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - Since I was only able to find partial matches, I don't think disambiguation is viable (per WP:PARTIAL). – Scyrme (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Not a golf-related phrase at all, any more than any other sport or activity. Seems to me more a dictionary term than anything we need a redirect for. Nigej (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Yeah, this redirect is unnecessary and the link form Golf could easily be replaced with a direct link. I actually tried to get it nominated on AFD because I did not know RFD existed, and ips can't nominate on AFD. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Edit: Delete 209.237.105.194 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Delete - the word "strict" does not appear in the target page at all. Perhaps this could target pedant, but probably best to just let the search engine work. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Pedant doesn't mention the word "strict" either, and "strict rules" doesn't necessarily imply pedantry. – Scyrme (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC) As fine a bit of pedantry as ever there was. Just delete, then. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC) I didn't mean to be pedantic; I only meant that readers searching might be looking for something else. (So I was agreeing with you that the search engine would be more helpful.) – Scyrme (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete "strictly" only appears once in the article anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Strictly ambiguous to the negative infinity. (Somewhat of a golf pun ... did I make a hole in one?) Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== U-Stor-It ==== U-Stor-It → Snow Crash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in target, not sure of what the connection is. Onel5969 TT me 15:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete or expand  into its own article about the storage company. Note that the redirect was created with the message the term U-Stor-It featured prominently in the novel Snow Crash, alternatively, there's an actual company as well ustorit.com if someone wants to create an article for that which is insufficient as, for example, tables are featured prominently in novels.Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Stuck in a Rut ====   ==== Maynilad ==== Maynilad → Manila  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Retarget to Maynilad Water Services. Maynilad more commonly refers to the water concessionaire in most contexts now, and very rare for anyone to think of Maynilad as the old spelling of "Maynila" (the Tagalog name of Manila). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget  as per rationale mentioned above. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget with a hatnote pointing to Manila --Lenticel (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== House of Bourbon–Anjou ==== House of Bourbon–Anjou → Spanish royal family  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in the target article. DrKay (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)  DrKay: Actually, it was the very topic of the target article until April 2022 [37] when it was split without discussion. And the split was executed so badly that neither article mentioned the other. May I suggest that this discussion be continued at Talk:Spanish royal family and addresses whether to split the article or not? No such user (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: For further participation. Post the last comment, No such user merged back content on the House of Bourbon–Anjou, and the nom removed it as unsourced and unverified.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 11:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to House of Bourbon#Bourbon branches where it is mentioned. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget per Presidentman, which seems to be a much better alternative to deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 04:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === March 21 ===   ==== Template:Prose timeline ==== Template:Prose timeline → Template:Prose  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] and related Template:Proseline and possibly others. I don't know why this was merged instead of deleted after the 3rd nom in 2009[permalink], but its existence is still causing problems. Money quote from that Tfd is in the nom:  Template masquerades as a policy/guideline-based cleanup tag, but is not. It is simply one editor's neologistic opinion about "proseline". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] 22:49, 28 August 2009That's still true, and now we have a minor kerfuffle at Tucker Carlson because of it, after my removal of Template:Proseline from Tucker Carlson#Media career in this edit, followed by active discussion at Talk:Tucker Carlson. Inviting User:Thebiguglyalien from that discussion. (Pinging User:SMcCandlish, as I'm uncertain if use inside a {{talk quote}} will mask the notif or not.)  There are 11 redirects to Template:Prose, of which five have the problematic proseline term in the name. There are 21 transclusions of 'Template:Proseline', so maybe we can just hard-delete it and fix up the existing uses; or maybe convert it to a soft redirect instead, with an added "Notes" section with additional comment right on the redirect page, explaining why maybe you don't want to follow it? Or, do we just carry on as is, and put up with the occasional confusion?   Possibly related (or maybe just confusing detail?): an earlier life of 'Template:Proseline' was moved  to Template:ProseTimeline per Tfd in 2007. How do we get out of this mess? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)  Or maybe an additional, "When to use" section at Template:Prose/doc might help, or in particular, "When not to use", which exist on some templates, and which I find very helpful, sometimes. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Comment: I'm not entirely sure what can be done to fix this, but WP:XFDCloser seems to think this is eligible to be closed because of the 2009 timestamp in the quote from TfD. Not an issue per se, just a note. TartarTorte 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) TartarTorte, thanks; I've masked the original 3rd nom link, and replaced it with a permalink; hopefully Xfdcloser won't see it now (unless it peers inside the comment). Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Oh, I see; you mean the one inside the talk quote, which you SMcC already hid; thanks for that. Restored it, entity-encoded; hopefully will work. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Looks all good to me now. Thanks! TartarTorte 12:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Comment Still hoping to get feedback on this. Imho, best option is to adjust the 21 transclusions, and delete the redirect Template:Proseline as misleading, confusing, and unrelated to any P&G. Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think there's an issue that requires them to be deleted (though I don't care about them being kept). I think the spirit of {{Prose}} and WP:PROSELINE are compatible. I think the issue with the Tucker Carlson example is that the editor just misused the template – the way the section is written doesn't seem to match the issue described in WP:PROSELINE. All redirects of {{Prose}} are listed in WP:AWB/TR so could be easily replaced with AWB if need be. MClay1 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Pulau Laut ==== Pulau Laut → Natuna Regency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] It should be deleted to make way for an article on that specific sub-district. I will most likely create that article soon but do not have time now. Also for a template I am making with the sub-districts of Indonesia. Also no pages link there PalauanReich (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)  The target article has a few sentences about the island, which can reasonably be seen as its subtopic. So the redirect is perfectly OK so far: if you'd like to write an article, then just do that over the redirect: that's how things are normally done. However, the real complication here is the existence of another island wit the same name in a different part of the country: Laut Island. Judging by the information in that article, it may well be the primary topic for the term. – Uanfala (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Strong keep. The Laut Island off the coast of South Kalimantan is the primary topic as it is more notable with bigger population and more significance historically and economically, connected to Kotabaru Regency. Using search in Indonesian language about Pulau Laut also revals that it is mostly used to refer to the one in Kotabaru Regency.  Nyanardsan (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Not necessary to delete the redirect in order to turn it into an article. Furius (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Relisting and pinging Nyanardsan to ask them to clarify their position: their !vote is phrased as "keep" but the actual argument seems to suggest retargeting to Laut Island. Other editors are also welcome to continue discussion.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Centiday ==== Centiday → Traditional Chinese timekeeping  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Word is not currently mentioned at target. Used in context of Chinese timekeeping at Metric time, and more generally at Decimal time (whither I just redirected the newly-created Deciday). 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)  When you have a concern about an article not mentioning a redirect, have you ever considered actually editing the target article to add a mention of it?  "Not mentioned in the current version of the article" is not an accepted reason for deleting redirects.  Also, this redirect was created in 2006.  That's 17 (seventeen) years ago.  WP:RFD#HARMFUL says: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. Deleting this would not be consistent with RFD's injunction to "consider the deletion only...of recent ones" (emphasis added).  Editors might disagree over whether a redirect that is two years old counts as "recent", but nobody thinks a redirect that actually predates the birth of some of our editors is "recent".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Comment: Metric time mentions centidays. See also wiktionary:centiday and {{wiktionary redirect}}. EpicPupper (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to decimal time. This is not a concept exclusive to Chinese timekeeping, and I have doubts that the term centiday is even used in this context; the article metric time claims that the Chinese unit kè is called centiday in a sentence that has had a {{citation needed}} tag for years. In any case, decimal time has a section about China with a link to the current target, and a section about France where centidays are actually discussed. V27t (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Piao Jinhui ==== Piao Jinhui → Park Geun-hye  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] WP:RLOTE- Mandarin transliteration 747pilot (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep Presumably this is the transliteration of the Korean Hanja script, which uses Chinese characters. IMO, that's a sufficient connection for RLOTE purposes. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC) @Patar knight No, it's the transliteration with the Chinese pronunciation and has never been used in Korea. Script doesn't equal pronunciation. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC) The test for RLOTE is not use within the redirect target's home country, but a broader requirement for some kind of genuine cultural connection. Since Hanja characters are almost exclusively identical to their Chinese counterparts, I think that is sufficient for RLOTE. Generally, if you see something written in a foreign language, you should be able to find the relevant Wikipedia article by searching for a romanized version. As long as there's no errors, having such redirects is probably marginally useful at worst. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC) However, people finding things written in foreign languages search using that foreign language's transliteration. Assuming that some Korean articles still use Hanja, readers of it will understand that it's Korean and search for its Korean romanization. Readers of Chinese articles should search up Chinese in their own Wikipedias. By this logic we should keep redirects of Tangnade Telangpu to Donald Trump and romaji redirects of Hanja. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Obviously there are people familiar with both English and Chinese, and telling them to use the Chinese Wikipedia when they want to find an English article isn't particularly helpful. It's also likely that these users would not be as familiar with Korean and would not known the Korean romanization, or encounter the characters in a setting that is ambiguous as to the language or without sufficient context to otherwise identify the subject. Your examples can be distinguished from this case, and don't rebut my point that if there is a foreign term properly rendered in its native language, a valid romanization is an argument to keep per RLOTE. I believe RFD has in the past similarly kept Cyrillic romanizations of terms from other Slavic countries. Donald Trump is an American, and American English does not use Chinese characters, so this would fail RLOTE, though perhaps if it is covered, it might be redirected to an article on Donald Trump's foreign policy, Chinese use of transliteration in foreign policy, etc. The romaji case is more compelling, though perhaps too remote for RLOTE. It is both less direct, since Hanja => Chinese romanization is one step, but Hanja => Japanese kana => Japanese romaji is two steps (with an additional step if you want to factor in the linguistic history of kanji and hanja both being derived from Chinese), and would also be much less useful because of the much lower number of speakers.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC) telling them to use the Chinese Wikipedia when they want to find an English article isn't particularly helpful, and so isn't deleting other redirects that fail RLOTE. To find the articles Chinese speakers can just type out the Hanja, they don't need to romanize it first. I get your point on English not using Chinese. However, Hanja to Romaji uses the same steps as Hanja to Pinyin. Pinyin is Hanja (Chinese characters South Korea variant)->Chinese characters mainland variant->Pinyin and Romaji is Hanja (Chinese characters South Korea variant)->Kanji (Chinese characters Japan variant)->Romaji. I do not see why you think Hanja needs to be converted to Japanese kana, which counts as an alternative "romanization" system with Chinese roots just like Bopomofo though it's more mainstream and covers more words, first. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC) There are scenarios where it is might be easier to type in a romanization than typing hanja (e.g. lack of familiarity with/access to a hanja/traditional Chinese input system, encountering the hanja in a non-digital format). I guess if we account for simplified Chinese characters vs. the traditional ones used in hanja, it would be an additional step there, but many Chinese users would have passing familiarity with traditional characters or might be from somewhere where it is still used (e.g. Taiwan), which reduces that friction. My understanding of romaji, though I may be mistaken, is that although the pronunciation in all systems is the same, it is technically derived from the pronunciation of the hiragana/katakana versions of the kanji, so there is an additional layer of remoteness for RLOTE purposes. I'm not at all familiar with if the hanja used in South Korean names would be among the most commonly taught kanji characters, so perhaps this is a distinction without a difference, though the utility argument would still apply. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Also, while researching more in depth for the above conversation, I found this article from Korea JoongAng Daily, with a brief mention of how Chinese tourists referred to the then South Korean president by the pinyin of her name in Hanja as opposed to a transliteration of how her name would be pronounced in Korean. They take pictures with their phones, and you can hear many of them talking with excitement about Piao Jinhui, the Chinese pronunciation of the name of President Park Geun-hye. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Delete see my reply above.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Lǐ Chéngwǎn ==== Lǐ Chéngwǎn → Syngman Rhee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Li Chengwan → Syngman Rhee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Po Zhengxi → Park Chung-hee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] See WP:RLOTE- Mandarin transliteration. 747pilot (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep Presumably this is the transliteration of the Korean Hanja script, which uses Chinese characters. IMO, that's s a sufficient connection for RLOTE purposes. Also, the target is from an era when Hanja was in more widespread use than today. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Delete see my reply above.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Li Mingbo ==== Li Mingbo → Lee Myung-bak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] See WP:RLOTE- Mandarin transliteration 747pilot (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep Presumably this is the transliteration of the Korean Hanja script, which uses Chinese characters. IMO, that's s a sufficient connection for RLOTE purposes. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Delete see my reply above.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Break down of demonic structures ==== Break down of demonic structures → Classification of demons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure how helpful such a redirect is. Veverve (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 09:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Delete. Implausible typo. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC) If the typo is the issue, move without redirect to Breakdown of demonic structures. Jay 💬 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Delete as not useful. --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Jesus as Christ and Messiah ==== Jesus as Christ and Messiah → Jesus in Christianity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Jesus as Christ → Jesus in Christianity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The idea that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah is also present in Islam and in Druze faith. Therefore, I propose to redirect all to Religious perspectives on Jesus. Veverve (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)  Keep. There is a difference between seeing Jesus as some sort of messianic figure and seeing Jesus as the Christ. "Christ" is a distinctly Christian term—it is not used to refer to Jesus by Muslims nor the Druze. And, in any case, the WP:PTOPIC for this phrase is going to have to be the Christian view of Jesus (i.e. Jesus as Christ) rather than the Muslim and Druze concepts. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Refining both, per the below, would also make plenty of sense to me and would have my full support. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)"Christ" is a distinctly Christian term for purely linguistic reasons. Christ is from Greek χριστός, meaning "anointed"; it is an exact translation of Hebrew משיח (English: "messiah"). Muslims and Druze use Messiah instead of Christ because their adherents primarily speak Semitic languages and so use the Semitic word instead of the Indo-European one. Conceptually, there is no difference. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 05:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Perhaps, but I think that we should care about English-language connotation when doing this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Refine both to Jesus in Christianity#Christ, Logos and Son of God, which is specifically about Jesus as Christ. Duckmather (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 08:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)I don't really have an opinion here, but is the proposed subsection a better target than Christology or Christ (title)? I suppose it depends on what the reader is actually looking for, and as is the case with many of our articles on religion, there is a lot of overlap in topic coverage. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Pendar ==== Pendar → Zoroastrianism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention at the target. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Veverve (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)  This existed as an article between 2006 and 2013. Its main content was: Pendar (Persian: پندار pendâr) is a Persian word meaning "thought" or "imagination". It is used by Zoroastrians: Pendar-e-Neek ("Good/Honorable Thoughts") is one of the three main pillars of Zoroastrianism, Iran's ancient religion. We have articles about the specific Zoroastrian concepts (like Vohu Manah for 'good though'), but I'm not sure the Farsi names are used for those, and pendar by itself seems like just a component of these terms, not a distinct encyclopedic concept of its own. So I think the redirect can be safely deleted, and this will have the benefit of revealing in the search results some unrelated minor topics with the name. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Delete per above. — The Anome (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC) An article with this title was earlier moved to Kenneth Pendar, and later Pendar became a dab with the Kenneth article as an entry, which then became a See also entry, and then was removed by an IP with no explanation. Jay 💬 09:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate to Kenneth Pendar, Seyed Pendar Toufighi, and Mohsen Pezeshkpour, all as personal names or nicknames. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC) I think the middle name entry is a bit stretched, but if Pendar was the nickname of Mohsen Pezeshkpour, then it makes sense to have a DAB with two entries. Jay 💬 07:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Comment: I also support the DAByfication, but as a second choice after deletion. Veverve (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate per LaundryPizza03 as a valid ATD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate per LaundryPizza03. Makes more sense as a disambiguation. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: A draft disambiguation page would help...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC) @Steel1943:  Done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== F-zerogplegend.com ==== F-zerogplegend.com → F-Zero: GP Legend  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Delete - URL in the redirect is dead, so it's not a believable target for searches.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)  Keep Still a valid search term. I don’t see why we should delete it, as some people may still search for the term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuicoleJR (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC) As I said, the URL is dead, so it is highly unlikely anyone would search for the term.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom as an implausible and outdated search term. CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Delete or Expand the article – I disagree with the point in it not being a believable target: notability does not degrade over time. If the URL was alive at any point, it could be cited in sources from the time, and so it's possible for someone to find the URL in one of the sources and try to search for more information about the site. However, the article does not provide any information about the site in its current state. If the site is covered by secondary sources, then the article can be expanded to talk about it. Otherwise, delete as unhelpful. I did not find any reliable coverage on the site from a quick search personally. Randi Moth (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC) The problem is that the archived versions of the site require Flash Player since the site was only designed to use it, so there isn't value to mentioning it as in other cases and as far as I can tell, none of the Flash alternatives are able to work with the site.  --Super Goku V (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Website names past or present are valid search terms. If this was their official website, keep, otherwise delete. Jay 💬 17:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Here is the Internet Archive's first saved copy, though as noted it doesn't work right due to the lack of Flash.  It does have links to the Nintendo website at the bottom, though if that is not enough proof then there is a problem as the Nintendo website archive for the time only properly works with Flash.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC) True. Before I made the vote, I visited the web archive of ALL the years and months of the website to see if any one version is good to be added as an external link in the Infobox or External links. I do not know if this was their official website. A reader may search for a website to know about the subject the website represents. In case of a defunct website, he may or may not be interested to see how the site looked before it was pulled down. In this case, it only gives an idea of the background colour, and the footer. Jay 💬 06:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC) It is a bummer that Ruffle is currently unable to load the website as it would likely make this discussion easier.  The Internet Archive did save more files that just the front page, but most of them don't really help: Sweepstakes, Wallpaper A, B, and C.  That is pretty much everything that was saved at the time.  If we could get to the GBA page on Nintendo.com, then we could easily confirm the connection, like with this link connecting Dr. Mario / Puzzle League to www.puzzleleague.com, but it likely is just a wild goose chase.   --Super Goku V (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Official website per Skynxnex. Jay 💬 06:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep Given the state of the internet in 2004, it seems more likely than not that the website in question was the official website of the video game. Maybe if someone has a copy of the game or even a Nintendo Power issue from then it could be verified? But anyways, I'm weak on this because even then I think it's pretty implausible someone would type in the URL of the website without already knowing the name of the video game today. Legoktm (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Keep It was at least one of their official websites (see back of box at like https://www.gamingrelics.com/Game_Boy_Advance/GBA_FZero_GP_Legend), it's not harmful to keep that I can sell, and could be useful. Skynxnex (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Regional Center ==== Regional Center → General Toll Switching Plan#Regional Center  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Regional centre → Regional centre (Singapore)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]Are these terms really that specific? Should this be a DAB page? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)  Yes.   It is a term of art in telecommunication, a proper name of a class of toll switching centers, that's why it is capitalized. You can create some disambig page, but not for the proper name. kbrose (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Weak Disambiguate - these are extremely genetic terms. There is sort of a dab page in the history of Regional centre ([38]). If you search using either the -re or -er spelling on Wikipedia there are many, many partial matches, but I wonder if any of these are ever referred to without the other parts of the name. And of course there is the usage to refer to a place of significance to a region, very common in Australia at least (eg see [39] and indeed Regional Australia, which at least could be listed on the DAB page). I do have a very hard time believing that either of the current targets are the primary topics, in any case. A7V2 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: These terms are very ambiguous and I don't think a DAB is the way to go. If we did choose to disambiguate the page I think we'd have trouble defending what meets the threshold for a "regional center". Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - I'm starting to lean more towards deletion. I'm definitely questioning whether Regional centre (Singapore) is really notable anyway, it just seems like a generic term used in planning in many countries. I have PRODed it. A7V2 (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Note: I have merged Regional centre (Singapore) into Regions of Singapore wholesale. Adjustments to the content is underway. – robertsky (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Regional Center as a redirect, delete Regional centre. Now that there is no other page called "Regional centre", DAB is not needed. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Regional centre as too generic per Lights and freedom and A7V2. Move Regional Center without redirect to Regional Center (telecommunications) just as the Singapore entry has a disambiguator to provide context to a generic term. Jay 💬 16:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: One more try...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Comment if the -er form(s) exist the -re forms should exist as redirects to the article/the same target as extremely plausible search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Blocklauncher ==== Blocklauncher → Minecraft modding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Previous RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Minecraft foobar. During the time between the previous RFD and this RFD, the mention of this term was removed from the target in this revision. As such, this term is no longer mentioned in the target nor in any other Wikipedia article. Nearly all of the sources that I have found on Google are unreliable. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== “Toni Fowler” ====   ==== Douglass Mackey ==== Douglass Mackey → Paul Nehlen#Social media bans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] I'm uncomfortable with redirecting the name of a (currently) non-notable person to the biography of the man who "outed" his online identity. This redirect's creator also created the Stephen French (troll) redirect which was deleted per "If he's not notable on his own I don't see good reason to have any sort of redirect at all." Wikipedia briefly had an article about him in April 2018 which was deleted by Bbb23 per (G10: Biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced) despite its citations to HuffPost, New York Daily News, Southern Poverty Law Center and Daily Dot. Arguably he has become notable since January 2021 when he was charged with disseminating misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote. This was not mentioned in the previously deleted version of his bio, but has been covered by reliable sources:  New York Times WPTV– wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Template:England Tours ====   ==== Richest american guy ever ==== Richest american guy ever → List of wealthiest historical figures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Seems to be a joke redirect that originally redirected to a joke article that has since been deleted. This is not a serious or encyclopedic search term, and it is also not specifically addressed in the current target. As such, I propose deletion. TNstingray (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete – I wouldn't necessarily call it a joke, but it's certainly very casual and an unlikely search term. If it is kept, it should be redirected to List of richest Americans in history, which is where its original target now redirects. MClay1 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC) May also want to consider: Wealthiest american guy ever, Richest american guy in history, Wealthiest american guy in history and Richest american guy. MClay1 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Unlikely Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Monph ====   ==== Grilled beef ====   ==== Manipuri: The Bishnupriyas and Meiteis of Manipur ==== Manipuri: The Bishnupriyas and Meiteis of Manipur → Bishnupriya Manipuri people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] It needs to be deleted because it's an inappropriate title and no one will search any information in this title. Besides, the article is not about the two ethnicities' comparison but only about one ethnic group. That title sounds like the name of a book or a particular literary work. Haoreima (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)  Notified of this RfD at the target talk and creator's talk pages. The page was at this title for 4 years before being moved. Per nom, it is not clear what the old title represented. The initial target was Ethnic groups of Manipur which is now a redirect that targets Manipur#Demographics. I don't think the creator has had any RfD notifications in the last ten years at least, other than the ones involving his nickname! Jay 💬 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Let's Keep it as a unique Jimmy Wales edit (history of Wikipedia related, unless, of course, it is one edit too many for the servers and freezes Wikipedia in situ). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC) "Unique"? There are 14k+ of them to date. Is it desirable to preserve all of them for posterity? DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Bishnupuriya Utsab ==== Bishnupuriya Utsab → Bishnupur, Bankura  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Bishnupuriya Ustav → Bishnupur, Bankura  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] It needs to be deleted because the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Haoreima (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Peter James (Pseudohistorian) ====   ==== Una (prefix) ==== Una (prefix) → Unit prefix#Unofficial prefixes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] There is nothing about "una" in the article and this redirect is therefore confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)  When the redirect was put in place in 2004-2005, the article did mention the (bogus) Una- prefix. See e.g. here. We should document it and add it to the article. At which point the redirect will become legitimate again. Urhixidur (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Delete unless added to the target with reliable sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: No mention has been added to the target yet.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 04:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Michigan Business School ==== Michigan Business School → Ross School of Business  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Michigan School of Business → Ross School of Business  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]Ambiguous search terms which could refer to any of the pages in Category:Business schools in Michigan or at the Michigan section of List of business schools in the United States. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)  Hm. Weak delete for Michigan Business School and weak keep for Michigan School of Business. Given that Ross is the only school in that category with "school" in its name and the latter is closer to its name than the former. Skynxnex (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Based on your comment I found Mike Ilitch School of Business at Wayne State University. I've now created a redirect and added it to that category. Additionally, I found List of business schools in the United States, which mentions Oakland University School of Business Administration. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Interesting. I think I am still a weak keep for that but now much weaker. It still seems by far the most likely target for someone just typing that. Skynxnex (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Weak keep Michigan School of Business as the school's former name was "University of Michigan School of Business Administration," which is reasonably similar. Weak delete Michigan Business School as ambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Given that the category now has school entries other than Ross.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 04:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to List of business schools in the United States#Michigan (I've just added anchors to that table), where all the possible targets should be listed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === March 20 ===   ==== Specific redirects to Multivitamin ==== Amdexyn → Multivitamin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Oralovite → Multivitamin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  Vitaped → Multivitamin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] These are names of multivitamine supplements that seem to be not notable on their own and are not mentioned at the target. While Vitaped is mentioned in List of drugs: Vf–Vz, it is in a list with no description on what it does. Oralovite and Amdexyn have no mentions at all on wikipedia. It seems these would be best deleted. TartarTorte 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep. The Multivitamin article does not need to be a directory of every multivitamin formulation and trade name, but on the other hand, it serves a purpose to be able to look up individual trade names to see that they are multivitamins. Each redirect takes minimal space, and reduces the risk that anyone will start them as new separate articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. Redirects without mentions are only rarely useful as they don't provide any additional information to those who know what they are and are likely to confuse those who don't. If these aren't notable enough to even be included in a list that gives information about what they are then we do not have any information about them and should mislead people (including users of third-party search engines) into thinking we do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per the above. We don't need redirects on every medicine in the world, only the ones where the readers can find some information. Jay 💬 06:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Fighter (2023 film) ====   ==== The El (disambiguation) ==== The El (disambiguation) → El train  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not a valid term for or on the target page. There is no indication that the phrase "The El" specifically refers to trains. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Weak retarget to El, although the use of the definite article makes it seem somewhat implausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC) 'Retarget per Presidentman -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Doubled "The" redirects ====   ==== Alu Kurumba language (redirect) ====   ==== President of Canada ==== President of Canada → Prime Minister of Canada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  President of canada → Governor General of Canada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Canada does not have, and has never had, a president, nor an equivalent position in the executive. A set index masquerading as a disambiguation page listing only entries that don't fit the description was deleted at AFD a few months ago and the title was left to redirect to the current target, which is incorrect. It has also been a redirect to Governor General of Canada (also wrong), Monarchy of Canada (very wrong), and Republicanism in Canada (less wrong) in the past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Retarget to Republicanism in Canada, the only article out of the series which discusses the concept of a Canadian presidency. Coincidentally it also lists the only two people who have actually held the title of President in a functioning legislative body in what is now Canada, John Bruce and Louis Riel, both presidents of the provisional Red River Colony government (the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia) which joined Confederation as the province of Manitoba about six months after forming. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note - added the lowercase redirect. They should at least target the same thing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - The only position it can be equated to (i.e. Head of state), is the Canadian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Delete — No equivalent office. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of Canada (contra the nom here, the consensus was to redirect not delete). This is an extremely plausible search term - Sahaib commented in the AfD that it was getting 84 views a day in September, and even as a less-visible redirect it's still getting an average of 1 use per day. Yes it's wrong, but the people using this almost certainly don't know that, those arriving at the article about the PM will be educated (Wikipedia's primary goal), a redlink doesn't help anybody and search results are unpredictable, sometimes multiple clicks/taps away and even if they do find something relevant there is no guarantee that the searcher will read them and learn anything. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget the second to Prime Minister of Canada. The consensus at the AfD was to target the first in this manner, and I see no reason why a different logic would apply to the second. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada much like Prime Minister of the United States redirects to President of the United States.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Delete I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a redirect to a non-existent office.  Wikipedia is about getting it right.  We shouldn't be referring to offices that have never existed.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC) No, Wikipedia is not about "getting it right", Wikipedia is about providing knowledge so that readers are educated about whatever it is they are looking up. In instances like this we do that best by taking readers the article that best explains what they searched isn't right but rather something similar is, which in this instance is Prime Minister of Canada. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Stubbify up an article on the misconception of the office of President of Canada, who has espoused such, and the proposals to create such an office, republicanism in Canada; also cover the potential equivalents of such an office (GG, monarch of Canada, PM) that exist -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - I'm against deletion for the record; as for whether to target a specific office or a general concept article, I prefer Republicanism in Canada (the general concept with history of the proposed position) with a hatnote directing to the various offices that could be considered equivalent to a president: the monarch, the GG, and the PM. Also, many Westminster republics have a president and a prime minister, as many former Commonwealth realms simply swapped out the monarch/viceregal for a president, so it's a reasonable guess that someone searching for this is trying to find out who the actual President of Canada is, rather than just mistaken about the head of state or head of government's title. Overall, we can debate over which incorrect office to redirect to (though to be fair the PM is the most likely choice), but choosing any specific office is going to be wrong, and also does not provide the reader with as relevant information as could be provided in the republicanism article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Also, fwiw, William Lyon Mackenzie was briefly President of Canada, in the short-lived Republic of Canada that attempted to break away from British rule during the Upper Canada rebellions. I don't think he makes a good redirect target, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)I wonder, if it would be possible to (if not delete or redirect) expand 'President of Canada' into an article. I think we do have other such pages on offices that didn't have full recognition, like President of the Confederate States. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC) The way this discussion is going, it seems that explanation is going to end up being a long and awkward hatnote at the Prime Minister of Canada article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada for reasons stated above. Many people from other countries may just be looking for the leader of the country and search president. No need to worry about theoretical cases of republicanism when that common search would be coming up every day. Dan Carkner (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget both to Prime Minister of Canada. It is much more likely that the head of government is what is wanted. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Delete both as nonexistent concept, or (second choice) redirect to Republicanism in Canada. Do not redirect to either the head of state (a very plausible target) or the head of government (another plausible target) without a big fat stupid hatnote. Third choice: stub/pseudo-disambiguation page on the misconception that there is a president of Canada. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I'm personally in favour of deletion, as it's a nonexistent position (unless we're just opening the gates to all conceptual opposing terms) (post: after some time, I'm actually can see the reason for a redirect to PM). That said, might people consider retargeting this article to the Republic of Canada, seeing as how that is the only place where such a position actually existed. Leventio (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Timeline of of children's television on the BBC ====   ==== Supreme Council of of Georgia ====   ==== Murder of of Daunte Wright ====   ==== Cheese and Onion ====   ==== Serbia and Montenegro-NATO relations ====   ==== Righteous People's Faith ==== Righteous People's Faith → Hero shrine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not sure what the connection is of this term with the target article, it's not mentioned there. Onel5969 TT me 14:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment The redirect originated as a link to Chinese hero cult, which is now BLAR'd. Appears to originate from a direct translation of the Chinese name for "heroes" (義民) listed there, that being "righteous people", if Wiktionary is correct and character-by-character translation is accurate. Randi Moth (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC) @Randi Moth that is correct.  Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)@Onel5969 @Randi Moth considering that it’s not used at all could be deleted, but it remaining will make certain past revision of pages and such easier  Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. Not mentioned in any media under this translated name. The cross-language wiki can handle the characters.  AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Normative principle ====   ==== Global Series ==== Global Series → FIFAe World Cup#Online qualification  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] "Global Series" is too generic to redirect to FIFA. The NHL and Apex Legends Global Series are much more popular. I propose to either delete this redirect or turn it into a disambiguation page. TimSmit (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Disambiguate as with World Tour. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate there is also the Global-series of business jets Bombardier Global -- 5000/6000/7000/7500 -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Disambig per the above. There are also mentions of Global Series at List of Magic: The Gathering sets#Introductory sets, Massey Ferguson#Overview of tractor models (although this might be better as a redlink) and Evans Data Corporation#Syndicated surveys. The CCGS disambig includes "Crown Championship: Global Series, a worldwide Clash Royale tournament", and this possibly should too, along with see alsos to World Series (disambiguation) and International Series. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold   ==== Amar Bail ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Amar Bail   ==== KWBD ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#KWBD   ==== Tuyet ====   ==== Dissenting catholic ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Dissenting catholic   ==== Arthur Feck ====   ==== SolidGoldMagikarp ==== SolidGoldMagikarp → ChatGPT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Not mentioned in the target article. Apparently, entering this term into ChatGPT will break the AI. Addition of this term into the article could be trivial and could possibly violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment - Not commenting on whether or not it should be deleted, but about WP:NOTGUIDE, I would say that its addition into the article would not be a violation. Sure, we shouldn't list every term found to have this effect, but adding a few examples and discussing briefly why it happens would be a fine addition to the article, most likely to the limitations section. – Popo Dameron talk 15:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)I should note that multiple statements like this have been removed from the article in the past.[40][41] Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)I'm the one who removed that first one, so I can tell you that's a very different case :) The instances you linked are anecdotal examples of 'tricking' the model into disobeying its instructions. This, on the other hand, is an actual bug in the code (that is backed by reliable sources) and not just an example of a "jailbreak". – Popo Dameron talk 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Technically, a jailbreak is also an actual bug in the code. See Privilege escalation where it explicitly mentions that it is a bug. Also you haven’t actually provided any reliable sources that suggests that this should be included in the target article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Keep and expand the target page. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Keep for now - this term is an example of "weird" prompts that lie near the centroid of the vectorized word space of certain language models (such as earlier versions of ChatGPT) and which therefore produce unusual behaviour in the AI. These kinds of tokens are a legitimate vector of academic inquiry that are likely to show up in formal literature if they have not already (there has been extensive discussion in AI technical/research blogspaces). As such I'd leave this pointing here as the most relevant target until we can source a more robust section... definitely not a case of "not a guide" as this refers to a specific phenomenon rather than a "thing to avoid". 193.37.240.154 (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Do you actually have any reliables sources for this term to be added into the article? Also, blogs are not reliable sources. What you have said above says nothing on why we should keep this redirect. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: I believe we should cover the topic of glitch tokens in some way, but I believe that a section at the ChatGPT article is a bad idea. The behaviour is identical with Bing Chat and all other GPT-3-based products, and moreover, milder glitches can be observed with GPT-2 as well (but nobody observed them before they were discovered on GPT-3). I would prefer a section at Generative pre-trained transformer or a separate article. Ain92 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: No mention has been added to the target, nor has an alternate target topic added to Generative pre-trained transformer.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 14:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Comment. The term is mentioned in passing in The Washington Post and there's a bit more in Vice (marginally reliable publication in trivial cases). I'm not sure there's enough material to add to any target. Doesn't this seem too trivial and would the content pass WP:10YT? The name is so obscure that this redirect would only be helpful if the term is mentioned in the target (and there's some kind of consensus to add), but in borderline cases article content should not be written redirect-first. Politrukki (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Delete – not mentioned at the target, and as User:Politrukki says, "in borderline cases article content should not be written redirect-first". It's not a particularly useful redirect anyway – this phrase is always or almost always found in sources about ChatGPT, so a reader searching for the term is likely trying to figure out whether "SolidGoldMagikarp" means anything in any other context, not to find information about ChatGPT in general. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Keep, maybe arguably SolidGoldMagikarp should even be its own page, or something similar to this should be. Mathmo Talk 10:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC) As said above, most reliable sources only mention this term in passing. The only reason this term is known is because of a software bug. There is no way that this term meets WP:GNG. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: One more go...Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Comment is this some kind of glitch or easter egg? It really should be mentioned in the article as a section. Otherwise it could redirect to Magikarp. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) @AngusWOOF: there's a hypothesis that this is a glitch that was caused by feeding the model data from Reddit conversations. Nothing certain. SolidGoldMagikarp is a Reddit username that means nothing without proper context. The glitch is apparently in multiple versions of GPT (I have no information about GPT-4, which was released to the public after this nomination), and is not ChatGPT-specific which suggests ChatGPT would be a poor target. I would love to support something like what Ain92 said, but I don't think the sourcing is there yet. It's very much possible that in the future someone publishes a paper in scholarly sources about this or similar topics, in which case a redirect could be justifiable. Politrukki (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC) I just checked on GPT-4, and yes, it absolutely does glitch with them at temperature 0. In fact, even if you just ask to repeat " SolidGoldMagikarp" in quotes, it starts writing poetry about rate limiting for LLM users (I could share an excerpt if it is relevant). I might have hit a rate limit not realising it. Anyway, at least one glitch token was definitely detected in GPT-4. The working theory is that these tokens were included because a counting subreddit (literally counting from 1 to infinity, nothing else), certain pieces of programming/HTML code and a game wiki were included in the tokenizing, but then removed from the training data as garbage, so the model has these tokens it has never seen in its life (imagine a third eye looking inside your head, which is never reached by light: you would be very surprised if in a scientific experiment that eye activated) and therefore can't normally predict them. The tokens were initialized in embedding spaces in different places depending on the model version, and that's likely why different models exhibit different glitch behavior. There is research ongoing on the topic, but most of it is self-published or sometimes even tweeted out. Ain92 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) PS Here's https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzyva/ai-chatgpt-tokens-words-break-reddit [a VICE article from February] BTW.   ==== Chem. Eur. ====   ==== EC Warriner (E.C. Warriner) ====   === March 18 ===   ==== List of Blu-ray Disc devices ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#List of Blu-ray Disc devices   ==== List of released blu-ray discs ====   ==== A Grade ====   ==== Rap and hiphop ====   ==== Spectator Club ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 25#Spectator Club   ==== Draft:Las Vegas Strip Street Circuit ====   ==== 2022 protests rollback of women's rights in the United States ====   ==== Big'uns ==== Big'uns → Al Bundy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This has a minor mention as the (parody) magazine at the target which is of a fictional character. An external search associates the magazine more with multiple characters of the sitcom Married... with Children, than with a single character. The sitcom article also has a mention, but as the BigUns magazine. The magazine name in the sitcom is shown as BIG 'UNS [42] At a recently closed RfD - WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Bigun, while I had initially suggested a disambiguation with the Dayna Danger work Big 'Uns, I thought the Al Bundy reference is too minor to be kept as a redirect. I would prefer deletion, but am open to other suggestions as well.  Jay 💬 07:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep. This is ambiguous with Big 'Uns which leads to substantive information at Dayna Danger. I suggest a hatnote to disambiguate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC) @Shhhnotsoloud: Why would the current target, which is one character of the sitcom, be better than Married... with Children? Jay 💬 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP.  If the redirect cannot be kept, it should be retargeted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) @Jax 0677: Retargeted to where? Jay 💬 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Three-Body - TV series ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Three-Body - TV series   ==== Iconic Bassist Extrodinair...The New Era of Live Music ====   ==== ICC members ====   === March 17 ===   ==== Evil-speaking ====   ==== Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature ==== Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature → Beelzebub#Judaism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The capital letters make this redirect unhelpful. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)  If the concern is capital letters, move without redirect to Baal-zebub in Rabbinical literature. Jay 💬 16:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Corrected to Baal-zebub in rabbinical literature per Eureka. Jay 💬 16:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Move as proposed by Jay. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I don't understand Jay's proposal. Why would we want to move this from an incorrectly-capitalized title to a different incorrectly-capitalized title? - Eureka Lott 14:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Sorry I thought Rabbinical would be capitalized. Jay 💬 16:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom and per WP:MOVEREDIRECT since this redirect is not a {{R with history}}; if Baal-zebub in Rabbinical literature Baal-zebub in rabbinical literature needs to be created, it can be created individually without moving this redirect to it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Updated per Jay's updated comment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== More "upcoming" no longer upcoming ====   ==== Turkish invasion ==== Turkish invasion → 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Ambiguous with Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which anyway is a WP:PTM. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs)  07:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)  Comment: I think there are two options here. The first option is to create a disambiguation page which lists all pages which could come under this title. The second option is to delete as there is no WP:PTOPIC. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I would agree with InterstellarGamer12321 and note that there are several Turkish invasions that come up in the quick search. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Create list, which would be a list of Turkish invasions, and then point this page to that list. There are a number of invasions carried out by Turkey (or its predecessor state) that could be pointed to by this. No such individual invasion is the WP:PTOPIC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Comment – can this not also refer to invasions of Turkey? J947 † edits 06:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Comment there is already a whole can of worms of these. UPDATE: added all per User:Champion/invasion: British invasion is a redirect to a proper noun with a hatnote to a dab Chinese invasion - redirect to Military history of China Christmas Island invasion - redirect to Battle of Christmas Island French invasion - disambiguation page with link to 2 categories. German invasion - redirect to Operation Barbarossa Iraqi invasion - redirect to 2003 invasion of Iraq Israeli invasion - redirect to Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which is a disambiguation page Mongolian invasion - redirect to Mongol military tactics and organization Russian invasion - disambiguation page Spanish invasion - disambiguation page Swedish invasion - disambiguation page Ukrainian invasion - redirect to 2022 Russian invasion of UkraineIn addition, American invasion, Dutch invasion, Indian invasion and Italian invasion, among others, do not exist but there are pages beginning with those titles.- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs)  08:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete as the singular title assumes there is one primary invasion. This is not Turkish invasions, List of Turkish invasions, List of invasions by Turkey or List of invasions of Turkey, which would have been more plausible redirect titles than the one being discussed. We have a List of invasions where Turkey can be found, but this is a list classified by date. If this was a discussion of Turkish invasions I could have supported a redirect to Category:Invasions by Turkey. Jay 💬 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Create and retarget to Turkish invasions, probably a set index is going to be better than a dab page, but this is an ambiguous but likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Template:Station-stub ==== Template:Station-stub → Template:Railstation-stub  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is an ambiguous template term. I think this template redirect should be disambiguated. From Bassie f (his talk page) 07:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)  Disambiguated how? It points to Template:Railstation-stub which is less ambiguous. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) See Template:Radio-station-stub @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 20:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Also see Template:Tv-station-stub @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 20:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I know that those exist, as do several others with "station-stub" in the name. What I mean is, exactly what is to be done in order to "disambiguate" this redirect? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate There are only two transclusions, but most of the links refer to TV or radio stations. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate using the draft I provided. From Bassie f (his talk page) 03:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Bassie f: Presumably you mean these edits. I don't know of other pages in template space where that method is used; please could you point to some examples? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) An example is Template:Infobox broadcast @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 19:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC) That is not a redirect, nor is it a stub template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I have done further research and it turns out no stub templates are disambiguation pages. @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 21:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Comment Previously discussed on Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion in June 2005, see Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#{{station-stub}} → {{broadcasting-stub}} / Category:Station stubs. Bassie f (his talk page) 03:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Bassie f: Since it was previously deleted at an XfD, and recreated without any WP:DRV that I can find, it may qualify for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Since 2005 is now so long ago I'd caution against G4. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Put a CSD G4 template on this redirect just now. From Bassie f (his talk page) 20:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) The previous target was Template:Broadcasting-stub while the current target is Template:Railstation-stub and I though generally with G4 and RFD the target has to be the same or at least similar, a completely different target generally precludes G4. Crouch, Swale (talk)  21:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) @Crouch, Swale, because of your reasons, I will remove the CSD tag soon. From Bassie f (his talk page) 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Removed the CSD tag just now. From Bassie f (his talk page) 22:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks, I'd also add a 3rd reason in addition to different target and time passed in that you drafted a DAB after that was suggested. Going back to the redirect I'd point out that there are lots of different types of stations including broadcasting stations, police stations, bait stations etc but the only one that is commonly called just "station(s)" are train stations. If someone says "I'm going to the station" unless the context is otherwise established its almost always understood to mean train stations even if you could be going to any other type of station. If you were going to the police or bus station you would say "I'm going to the police/bus station" not "I'm going to the station". If someone transcludes this title its highly likely they are wanting to mark a stub as a train station stub and even more unlikely they are wanting broadcasting stations. I'd be fine with having this title as a DAB like Station is but the present target is far more suitable than the previous one. Crouch, Swale (talk)  22:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: nominator makes a great point that this isn't specific enough to point to just one template, but I've never seen a disambiguation page in template space and as far as I'm aware that's totally nonstandard. If, however, it turns out that's a wrong assumption and a dab page is fine, then consider me in support for that. QuietHere (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Template dab pages are uncommon but they exist. MClay1 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Weak keep unless we generally don't have stub redirects it seems likely per my comment above that this is by far the most likely target. Crouch, Swale (talk)  18:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate into Template:Railstation-stub, Template:Radio-station-stub and Template:Tv-station-stub. greyzxq talk 19:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Ketchup chips ====   ==== WaveLight ====   ==== South Ukraine counteroffensive ==== South Ukraine counteroffensive → 2022 Kherson counteroffensive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] A representative of Ukraine's military has declared Ukraine intends to do a counteroffensive against Russia on spring to cut Russia's corridor connecting Crimea with the mainland [43]. This corridor is located in Ukraine's south. But the current target article is also about a counteroffensive in the south. This redirect is ambiguous and will turn problematic in the future. Besides, the most appropriate title for such a new counteroffensive will most likely be something like "2023 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive". A disambiguation page is not necessary. So I believe it is best to delete the redirect. It does not have any link and received one single view in the last 30 days anyways. Super Ψ Dro 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)  If ambiguous, it can be made a disambiguation page. Why will it turn problematic? If there is no article with mention of the Crimea counteroffensive yet, it means the current target is still a relevant "current" target. Jay 💬 17:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Delete as there are several counteroffensives per Tavix, and redirecting to either a specific counteroffensive, or a generic page is not helpful to a reader who is specifically looking for counteroffensives. Jay 💬 15:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Retarget to Southern Ukraine campaign? -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC) ..which is the target of Southern Ukraine offensive. I think the term counteroffensive is key in this discussion. Jay 💬 17:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC) There's plenty of discussion about counteroffensives, including Southern Ukraine campaign#Fall of Mariupol, Ukrainian counter-attacks, and stalemate and Southern Ukraine campaign#Kherson-Mykolaiv counter-offensive. -- Tavix (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Pithius ==== Pithius → Classification of demons#CITEREFAgrippa1510  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] No mention at the target anymore. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)  Comment: This would normally be a delete since there is no opposition, and I wouldn't oppose it either. My only observations are that this is a 2003-created page which was a stub that got BLARd. It has been getting 10+ daily page views the last 8 years. It could be because it is linked at List of theological demons or users may be looking for something else, probably a misspelling of Pittheus, Pytheas, or one of Pythius (disambiguation), or Pythias (disambiguation). Jay 💬 16:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)According to both the initial stub article and the now removed section in the target [44], "Pithius" is one of the demons in the classification in Francis Barrett's The Magus. The version of this text this text that I've had a look at doesn't seem to mention this name, although it does mention Pythius. It could be an alternative name from a different edition of this text, but either way the topic doesn't seem worth providing navigation for. I'm tempted by the idea of creating a slightly non-standard dab page from Jay's list above: these items are all difficult to spell, and "Pithius" is a plausible misspelling for all of them. I wouldn't leave that to the search engine, as it doesn't seem capable of handling it. – Uanfala (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Jan Huygen van Linschoten, Market of Goa, Itinerario ==== Jan Huygen van Linschoten, Market of Goa, Itinerario → Market of Goa (Van Doetecum)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This is a procedural nomination, given that it has been nominated multiple times for CSD and it has been declined over and over again. In an effort to break that cycle, I am asking the wider community to have its say. The article was at its former title from February 2022 to February 2023. Arguments for its deletion can be seen at Talk:Jan Huygen van Linschoten, Market of Goa, Itinerario, Special:Permalink/1140019916, and Special:Permalink/1139589271. Additionally, see User talk:LlywelynII § Criteria for speedy deletion (permalink). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)  Keep - seems a reasonable enough way to search for this, and quite unambiguously takes someone searching it to exactly what they are looking for. Certainly nothing bad enough to warrant deleting a redirect that was this article's title for a year (WP:RFD#K4). A7V2 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Delete, obviously. It's a nonsense string of out-of-order words put there by a college student doing an assignment (poorly) and simply wasn't noticed before. It's completely useless even for SEO searching (all those terms are in the article already) so just let the thing die already. xD No idea why this became a cause celebre for some of the admins. We aren't going to create Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, portraits of women, or Dan Jurgens, page 37, Death of Superman, or Avengers, that scene where he's really fat, Liam Hemsworth's brother and we shouldn't keep this silliness. Already fixed the incoming links and, w/r/t RFD#K4 concerns, no there isn't enough traffic for it to be an actual concern. — LlywelynII 07:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Delete per LlywelynII, mainly because of the out of order terms. The redirect title should not be a list of search terms in random order. Also, I don't know why the target has a disambiguated title. Move the target to Market of Goa. Jay 💬 10:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Keep because this was the title of the article for a year. I agree this is a very, very unlikely search term, but given K4 it is likely there will be outdated links from other sites which pointed to this article and therefore now instead point to this redirect. J947 † edits 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)LlywelynII, it's orthogonal to this discussion but the article's title should be (Van Linschoten), right? Or am I being dumb... J947 † edits 03:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC) But why have the disambiguator at all? Jay 💬 18:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Dennis Rogers ==== Dennis Rogers → Denis Rogers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Incorrect spelling left over from old move ★Trekker (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)  Keep. Completely plausible spelling, considering Dennis is written more commonly with a double n. No harm in keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Keep per CycloneYoris. This redirect is potentially helpful to people who're searching for his name like that. Disambiguate per J947 and all "disambiguate" !voters below, and add a "See also" section including Denis Rogers' article. @BD2412: Thanks for finding all these other entries! Regards, SONIC678 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC), edited 01:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Delete or disambiguate. I was just about to say what these two said, but this is an ambiguous title. Search is more helpful than a straight target in this instance IMO, despite a plethora of unhelpful partial title matches. I suggest disambiguation would be the most helpful, but equally all the Dennises Rogers mentioned on the site carry little information beyond the mention. J947 † edits 01:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC) To add, a search outside of Wikipedia also results in a lot of hits for several other people and fictional charaters named "Dennis Rogers", it might be misleading to direct all people to Denis Rogers.★Trekker (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Reaffirming that I strongly disagree with keeping as is. Correct titles should be prioritised over incorrect titles. The dab page sort of stretches it at the moment, but I'm fine with that. J947 † edits 04:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Keep. Search still works. Denis Rogers is not in search results so would not be found. Peter James (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry what do you mean?★Trekker (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC) It's still possible to search for something if it's the same as an article title. Search for "Dennis Rogers" and the Denis Rogers article is not in the results, so without a redirect would not be found. Peter James (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC) What? That makes no sense, if you search "Dennis Rogers" you get redirected to Denis Rogers, and if you search "Denis Rogers" you also get that article.★Trekker (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate. I find the following additional instances in a search for "Dennis Rogers":Mike Rogers (Alabama politician), full name Michael Dennis Rogers Dennis Rogers, Vancouver Canadians minor league baseball team manager in 2003, 2004, and 2006 Dennis Rogers, columnist for The Raleigh News & Observer in Barbecue in North Carolina and Lexington Barbecue Festival Dennis Rogers (strongman & arm wrestler), in Grip strength Jay "Saint" Smith ("an outreach pastor named Dennis Rogers took Smith under his wing") Dennis Rogers, volunteer and recipient in the 2019 New Year Honours Dennis Rogers, United States Marine Corps Brigadier General, in Kemper Military School The Dennis Rogers Show (2007), Roger Rohatgi, lead actor Dennis Rogers, fictional British Intelligence agent sent to rendezvous with a Swiss Banker in James Bond 007: Light of My DeathOf that group, I would guess that the general is likely notable, and at least some of the rest are noteworthy, so there is enough to disambiguate from what is currently a misspelling. BD2412 T 19:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate. That's the way to go; enough there to make that worthwhile. Schwede66 20:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate ambiguous name. Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Weak keep. Certainly no reason to delete this plausible misspelling, but DABing when only two potential targets have WP articles and one only has "Dennis" as a middle name seems unnecessary. An anonymous username, not my real name 13:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Keep. This is a reasonable search term and the only plausible article whose subject this would refer to is the misspelling. Should any of the people named Dennis Rogers actually have a page, then this can be easily rectified, but absent such a page existing it makes sense to keep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate'. There seem to be enough entries to justify a page. In any case, the New Zealand politician, whose name is not spelled this way,  is not particularly well-known and would be prominently featured on the DAB anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patar knight (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Delete per J947, and rely on search results because there are several mentions of the name on enwiki. Agree with An anonymous username that the DAB is unnecessary. I went through the drafted dab and all entries it led to, and I don't see that a DAB page more helpful for the minor mentions in articles, than what a search would provide. Some entries are really stretched, such as the The Dennis Rogers Show linked from a page of its co-host. Disagree with Peter James, that searching for "Dennis Rogers" will not show up Denis Rogers. It does now, and will work even after Dennis Rogers is deleted. Jay 💬 14:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate or delete - I think that entries for the Vancouver Canadians manager and brigadier general, plus the current target, are just enough to justify a disambiguation page. I don't disagree with the deletion arguments but at this point in the discussion I think it's going to be very difficult to sway a consensus for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Keep and disambiguate - the Dennis/Denis error is common enough that it makes sense to list entries for both names on one page, and there aren't so many entries that a single disambiguation page would be too long. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. This is a very plausible misspelling and the current target is by the most likely of those who currently have an article. No prejudice against a dab page, but it should not be primary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC) missing word "not" added Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - I agree that Denis/Dennis is a very likely search term.  Denis Rogers does seem like the primary target, and should remain so, but a dab page can be created as a secondary page. Fieari (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Keep as misspelling only A dab of random one-time mentions buried in other pages is a solution looking for a problem.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Digvijay Chautala ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Digvijay Chautala   ==== Isabella Losa ====   ==== Ramanagar ==== Ramanagar → Ramanagara  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] This redirect leads to an article about a city with a different spelling, Ramanagara (with an 'a' on the end). That article contains no uses of the redirect's spelling. There is also a disambiguation page at Ramanagar (disambiguation) that lists other places that do use the redirect's spelling. Moreover, that disambiguation page also lists places with a third spelling, "Ramnagar" (without an 'a' between the 'm' and the 'n'). For that third spelling, there is also another disambiguation page at Ramnagar. That different disambiguation page also has a mixture of spellings, some of which use the first "Ramanagar" spelling! See also the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 3#Ram Nagar, about a fourth spelling. There are only three articles that link to the Ramanagar redirect. My inclination would be to merge the two disambiguation pages and redirect Ramanagar there. However, I don't really know whether the spellings should be considered distinct and whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)  Move Ramanagar (disambiguation) to Ramanagar. If the merged disambig page is not at this title, then redirect Ramanagar to that page. Jay 💬 17:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Urdu culture ====   ==== 33-0 ====   ==== Journocaust ====   ==== List of Chinese films of 2021/List of Chinese films of 2022 ====   ==== Grade (education) ====   ==== Template:Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet ====   ==== Phulrraa ====   ==== Pepper sauce ==== Pepper sauce → Sauce poivrade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Pepper sauce could refer to either this, or hot sauce, or any sauce made with peppers. In fact the redirect when it was first made originally redirected to Hot sauce until it was nominated for speedy deletion in 2010, then was redirected to a more specific pepper sauce for many years, then changed to the current target just over a year ago. Retarget back to hot sauce or find another target? Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)  Setindexify -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Setindexify at List of pepper sauces. This is a highly likely search term, but it is also ambiguous. We have articles on many types of pepper-based sauce, including the current target, Bajan pepper sauce, Peppercorn sauce, Shito, Harissa and Chili sauce. There are likely others too. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Color Lines (Loop) ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Color Lines (Loop)   ==== Alan Umstead (musician) ====   ==== The Catholic Answer ====   ==== .test (international domain name) ====   ==== Chicken fart ====   ==== Life Before Earth ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Life Before Earth   ==== Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk "Isdatelstwo Nauka" ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 28#Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk "Isdatelstwo Nauka"   === March 16 ===   ==== Mark and Avoid ====   ==== 2022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukraine ====   ==== Scapular ptosis ====   ==== God of Carpentry ====   ==== SCREAM (cipher) ====   ==== Orthodox Christianity ====   ==== Start Publishing ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23#Start Publishing   ==== Microbear ====   ==== Star Life ==== Star Life → Disney Star  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Star Life can be also refer to Latin American TV channel John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 08:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)  I started the discussion because I can decide if I can either keep the redirection or disambiguate it. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 01:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Keep. It is mentioned in the target and has a clear hatnote referring the reader to the other reference. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Keep per Softlavender. Hatnote already solves this ambiguity. CycloneYoris talk! 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC) @John123521: What is your expectation? Jay 💬 09:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC) I was considering disambiguate the article but I can’t decide. Will close this discussion because  I had done hat notes myself. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC) If you were considering disambiguation, then your nomination had to imply that Disney Star is not a WP:PTOPIC. Jay 💬 11:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC) had add some additional information now. Thanks! John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 01:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC) If you are referring to this edit where you replaced the link of Disney Networks Group Asia Pacific with a link to Star China Media, how is it relevant to this discussion? Jay 💬 14:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Disambiguate between Disney Star, Star Life (Latin American TV channel), and Star (Disney+) in lack of evidence of a primary topic. All three topics are international distribution channels owned by Disney and either defunct or officially under a different name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay 💬 14:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Disambiguate between Life cycle of a star (a star's life) and the two entertainment properties; add a see also for Star of Life, Lifestar, Star for Life -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Disambig per 65.92.244.151, the life cycle of a star was my first thought but entertainment uses are equally prominent in search results so there is on primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Move to Star Life (Africa) (consistent with Star Life (Latin America)) or Star Life (African TV channel) (consistent with Star Life (Latin American TV channel)), to separate out the history, since the page has been about the African channel from its very first edit in 2019. A new disambig page can be made at Star Life or Star life per IP65. Jay 💬 14:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   ==== Social Rockstar ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23#Social Rockstar   ==== Queen’s Slipper ====  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Queen’s Slipper   ==== MK Pictures ====   ==== Student achievement ====   ==== Torah-submission ====   ==== Rogue Squadron (upcoming film) ====