User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	8	11	19
TfD	0	0	1	4	5
MfD	0	0	4	5	9
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	18	25	43
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

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

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

• Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

STEP I.	Tag the redirect(s).   Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page. Please do not mark the edit as minor (m). Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]. Save the page ("Publish changes"). If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page. If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.	List the entry on RfD.  Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries. Enter this text below the date heading: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~ For this template: Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=. Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=). Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating). To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~ If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.	Notify users.   It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template {{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~ may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

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

Current list

September 17

Muhajir Province

• Muhajir Province → Karachi Division  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Muhajir Province (Movement) → Karachi Division  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This redirect points to its current target due to its former target, Muhajir Province (Movement) (title match but with a disambiguator, thus a WP:PRECISE violation), being subject to a total WP:BLAR which occurred a few months ago. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Muhajir Province (Movement) in this. Notified the target page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Pokemon Directory

• Pokemon Directory → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokédex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Pokémon directory → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokédex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 9 § Pokémon directory – retarget to Pokédex

previously nominated and retargeted, despite notdirectory. the pokédex isn't much of a traditional directory either cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the consensus of the previous RfD that this is a good description of and plausible synonym for the target. I don't understand how WP:NOTDIRECTORY is relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  thought this reply was sent before, but apparently not

  do you think it's used as a synonym for the pokédex? because results mostly gave me lists of pokémon by whatever trait (type, pokédex number, etc.), blogs, guides, and... a book seemingly made in gen 2 with a cover written entirely in comic sans. come on, that's just cursed cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a synonym, in the sense that people don't call it that as an alternative name, it is however a plausible search term for people who don't know or don't remember what the in-game directory of pokemon is called. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know how WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to titles of articles, let alone redirects. As it says In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. We are a directory of many things, just not things that are overly non-notable directory-ish, as in the examples given in NOTD. So I am undecided between keep based on that thinking of a Pokedex as a directory is very plausible (agree with the previous RfD) and add a section hatnote Gameplay of Pokémon § Pokédex. Or retarget to List of Pokémon, which is a directory of Pokemon. Skynxnex (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget? Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The Greatest Of All Time (Upcoming film)

• The Greatest Of All Time (Upcoming film) → The Greatest of All Time  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The film has released, and this doesn't link to any mainspace article. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Tri-tert-butoxyaluminum hydride

This item is redirected to Lithium aluminium hydride, which is a different conpound, that even does not contain tert-butyl groups; tri-tert-butoxyaluminum hydride does not contain lithium.--M97uzivatel (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"Loss"

• "Loss" → Loss (comic)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

thank chernobog those aren't apostrophes. on a less important note, is this unnatural enough to warrant deletion, and if it's not, should it be retargeted to loss? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep normally I'd support deleting these per WP:PANDORA but the article suggests that the term with quotes is common so seems sensible enough to keep on its own merits. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• REtarget to loss (disambiguation) -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Keep" or Retarget to loss (disambiguation) as my less preferred option. "Loss", specifically in quotes, does seem to have a primary target of this comic, and while the disambiguation page can get you there, it's far down the list and easily missable, particularly and especially if someone is searching this because they don't know what someone online is talking about when they put loss in quotes like this, which I would imagine is a major use case. If someone was not looking for this comic, I imagine they would remove the quotes and search again. Fieari (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hard Cast

• Hard Cast → Bullet#Materials  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

results seem torn between hard cast bullets, orthopedic casts, and ptms for movies with "hard" in their titles cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hands-On Museum

• Hands-On Museum → Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete or disambig - quick google search found at least three other museums referred to this way, the Ann Arbor one doesn't seem to be clearly the primary topic. I don't believe we have articles for most of the others. Rusalkii (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Create a Set index at List of hands-on and interactive museums or some similar title (the terms are interchangeable) until we have content about the type of museum. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Set indexify, but if that doesn't happen, keep. If we don't have any coverage of any of the other museums, there is no reason to delete this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts DS

• Kingdom Hearts DS → Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could be confused with Kingdom Hearts Re:coded. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

okay i believe you. retarget to kingdom hearts#games cogsan _{(quack) (ES LEBE DEUTSCHLAND)} 17:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete With no specific game called "Kingdom Hearts DS", letting the search function do its job is better than sending people to a big list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  per precedent with redirects like kirby wii, i'll disagree with that. they tend to get retargeted to their series' articles, so readers can find the games that got released on those specific consoles cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Etelis coruscans

• Etelis coruscans → Etelis#Taxonomy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per the Rcat template: "Note that the practice of creating redirects from species names that could be articles is strongly discouraged." UtherSRG (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Please link to the consensus decision that redirects from species names that could be articles is strongly discouraged. It does not appear to be linked from the template. A categorical claim like this should be linked to the guidance supporting it. Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• I will also note that the reason for speedy deletion was given as an implausible typo or misnomer which it clearly is not, and that reason was misleading and deserving of a challenge. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Brazilian and Portuguese varieties

• Brazilian and Portuguese varieties → Brazilian Portuguese  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

is this vague? as far as i understand, it could be referring to any type of "variety" of anything that could be considered "brazilian" or "portuguese" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Very vague. Not helpful at all. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:XY. Seems like it could refer to either Brazilian or European varieties of Portuguese. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Contrary to the above, this is not XY nor is it, in practice, vague - it's clearly looking for an article about the similarities and/or differences between Brazilian and Portuguese varieties, the only issue is that it does not specify what the varieties are of. The Portuguese language is probably the most prominent thing that has notable Brazilian and Portuguese varieties, and the target article does discuss how they differ. What we need to establish is whether there are other things that have notable Brazilian and Portuguese varieties, and if so whether the language is the primary topic. Actually doing that research we find that literally 100% of results for "Brazilian and Portuguese varieties" -Wikipedia and every hit on the first 5 pages of results when the quotes are omitted refers to difference between European and South American varieties of Portuguese. Even results that at first glance seem unrelated (Toponymy of São Tomé and Príncipe) are contrasting the local variety of Portuguese with the varieties named in the title. This would not make a good article title, but this is not an article title it's a redirect, and it's clearly taking searches to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:XY. And what the heck is a "variety" in reference to the current topic? Steel1943 (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Quadrachromic pencil

• Quadrachromic pencil → Pencil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not look like we have any content on this, neither at the current target nor at Colored pencil. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment the history of this redirect suggests it's a {{R from merge}} but I've not investigated whether it was actually merged. The two sentences were enough that it wouldn't meet any speedy deletion criterion if restored but not enough to sustain an article. If sent to AfD I expect it would get a mix of !votes to delete, merge, and expand with consensus equally likely to be any of them. History and uses are obvious potential areas for expansion but I've not yet looked to see what sources are available. Thryduulf (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think an entry for multi-colored pencils in general, including 3 color, 4 color, 5 color, 6 color, and more, would fit very well at Colored pencil#Types. I imagine it shouldn't be hard to find a sources simply stating what they are, maybe how they are made, who uses them, etc. Then we could redirect there. Fieari (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Search results are mostly Wikipedia mirrors. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

September 16

Snowball clause

• Snowball clause → Wikipedia:Snowball clause  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect C F A 💬 22:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to List of idioms of improbability#Tasks that are difficult or impossible to perform where the "clause" is discussed. Cremastra (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Häxans förbannelser

• Häxans förbannelser → Noidan kirot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Haxans forbannelser → Noidan kirot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target (nor at the fiwiki sitelink). It doesn't seem like this is directly related? 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep – seems to be an alternative Swedish title. Cremastra (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Lithotomic

• Lithotomic → Lithotomy position  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could refer to lithotomy. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to lithotomy as an {{r from adjective}} Cremastra (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A!

• A! → Alexa Feser#Discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

same-ish case as "a?". target doesn't help proving that this album is the primary topic for a common letter followed by a common punctuation mark cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment as per the A? nomination, this is the logo, "A!", currently used at the article Aalto University -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to A (disambiguation), and itemize there (the university can be listed with 'A?', 'A!', 'A"' (A-double-quote) logo variants -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:MBTI Instrument

• Template:MBTI Instrument → Myers–Briggs Type Indicator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:MBTI Archetypes → Myers–Briggs Type Indicator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:MBTI Cognitive Functions → Myers–Briggs Type Indicator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:Mtbi instrument → Myers–Briggs Type Indicator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Three more template space redirects pointing to Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (added 12:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC))

Template:MBTI Archetypes, was merged to Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

Template:MBTI Cognitive Functions, was merged to ISTJ

Template:Mtbi instrument, alias of Template:MBTI Instrument

A few years ago, this template became unused, and was redirected to the main MBTI article. Isn't the normal procedure for unused templates to be deleted? I don't see why one would do a redirect from template space to an article. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Do these need to be kept for attribution? --Un assiolo (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Restore and TfD? Jay 💬 11:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last three nominated redirects were not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Black box (fiction)

• Black box (fiction) → Deus ex machina  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

i really have to be missing something here, because every definition i found for "black box" that wasn't a vehicle part or literal black box was "a thing that does stuff that you're not allowed to see the doing of". not necessarily a macguffin, not necessarily a deus ex machina, and especially not necessarily tied to fiction, but the disambiguator takes care of that last part cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

for the record, until i find out what could tie this to this specific trope, my vote will be weak retarget to macguffin. seems it's sorta kinda what the last revision before being blar'd referred to (probably, maybe, i'm not sure) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiplicity of a restricted root

• Multiplicity of a restricted root → Multiplicity (mathematics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"restricted root" is not mentioned at the target (and is only used a few times in the entire English Wikipedia's mainspace). 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Not into mathematics, but searching gave me Plancherel theorem for spherical functions#Harish-Chandra's Plancherel theorem that has "α is called a restricted root and $m_{\alpha }=\dim {\mathfrak {g}}_{\alpha }$ is called its multiplicity." Jay 💬 13:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  That does seem like an appropriate target, it looks like I've overlooked it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's not really an appropriate target. A restricted root is an element of a root system of a semisimple Lie algebra, and its multiplicity is the dimension of the associated eigenspace. This has little to do with Harish-Chandra's theorem. I think Semisimple Lie algebra would be more appropriate. Tito Omburo (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Semisimple Lie algebra as suggested by Tito Omburo. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear which target would be most suitable…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:19, 29 August 2024 (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) 20:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hypeicane

• Hypeicane → Hyperbole  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not a word, it seems. results gave me beer and "hype hurricanes" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment I don't know what the original intention was, but retargeting to hypercane as an {{r from typo}} seems reasonable. Paradoctor (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

On a keyboard, I is three keys across from R. Not aware of any other keyboard layouts that have R and I next to eachother. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not all typos come from greasy fingers. For example, some people are prone to snooperisms Paradoctor (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

...nah, i think this one's just a skill issue. really hard to rationalize cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 04:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to "rationalize", only for you to realize that there's more to things than the limited set of preconceptions that constitute your factory setting. Sheesh. FYI, I'm one of those for whom "typo" means more than base motor issues. Paradoctor (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

i mean, if we don't even know what word this is supposed to be a typo of... cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You're not hearing me. You still presume that the only possible way of producing typos is greasy fingers. Which has been refuted. Paradoctor (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

i am hearing you, but i can't think of any possible case in which someone would input i instead of r. spoonerisms are out of the question since that's not what a spoonerism is (for starters, it would require that either word have an i and no r). fat fingers are out of the question unless someone theoretically has a keyboard not even half the size of their palm (in which case fair enough, but you really need a bigger one), greasy fingers are out of the question because there's a t key right next to r just begging to lick them clean, hitting your keyboard with a baseball bat is a bad idea, don't do that (also it's unlikely to land on the i and no other letter), and deliberately using different letters relative to their location on the keyboard or alphabet (but only halfway through, and presumably for one letter), because trying any form of consistent pattern only gave me hypeisfcv and hypeixefu. there's also the issue of it apparently being a "related term" (as in probably not a typo) to hyperbole, but results only gave me this redirect, and circular logic is something best kept in adult swim shows

if you have some idea of what this could theoretically be that can't be compared to calling a song in 4/4 a waltz, i would really appreciate it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

i can't think

I rest my case. Paradoctor (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

i rest cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan: Just because you don't make that particular typo does not mean nobody does. For example, possibly the most common typo I make is "musuem" for "museum", that is not due to fat fingers or greasy fingers, but I assure you it is a typo. Additionally, QWERTY keyboards are not the only input method. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

there's a difference between "musuem" and "hypeicane"; musuem just switches two letters of a word around. it's plausible if you're typing a little too fast. hypeicane, assuming it's just a typo of hypercane, which the creator seemingly did not think was the case, switches a letter for another letter that is not even normally in that word, and isn't close enough to r to justify a misinput, close enough to p to justify a... misinput (there really has to be a better word), or phonetically similar enough to justify a mishearing

as for the keyboard layouts, i checked every single layout mentioned on wikipedia to make that claim, and the only ones that have i close enough to p or r to justify any plausible form of misspelling are bépo and dvorak, and if you want to argue that an apparently obscure french layout and a layout designed with the specific intention of reducing errors (though its effectivity in that area is debated) could justify that, then go ahead, i guess cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Hypercane and tag as {{R from typo}} per Paradoctor. Seems plausible enough for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - not a word, not a plausible typo. No one has been able to justify why this redirect was created, and the creator cannot, as he has been banned from enwiki. Jay 💬 06:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete as implausible. I get 4 (four) search results on Google for this, with two of them being on Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete as implausible. Urhixidur (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Saint Boy

• Saint Boy → Modern pentathlon at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in the target article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be the name of a horse used by both Annika Schleu and Gulnaz Gubaydullina. It's mentioned at both of their articles, but I think search results are best as neither article has more info than the other. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep and add that information to the article. If neither has more info than the other, then the appropriate place to link is the event page where both competitors are listed. --Habst (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

How can you vote "keep" if such info is not added? Info should come before redirect. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10, redirect discussions are not votes; see WP:NOTAVOTE. I didn't just vote to keep, I am recommending to both keep and add the info to the article, not one without the other. I don't mind in which order it's done. --Habst (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Presidentman, unless useful content is made available at the current target. Jay 💬 15:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Annika Schleu#2020 Tokyo Olympics, which is where the horse is mentioned. According to the content there, that particular horse's performance and athlete Schleu's treatment of it were the catalyst for the decision to officially drop equestrian from the modern pentathlon. [1][2] The decision to drop equestrian from the sport is mentioned in the article Modern pentathlon, but not the horse itself. The horse will likely continue being mentioned in Annika Schleu because that is when/where/how the incident with the horse happened. If later the horse gets mentioned in Modern pentathlon, then the redirect can be changed. Until then, it should point to Annika Schleu#2020 Tokyo Olympics. The current target (Modern pentathlon at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's) is not the appropriate place.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Better yet, add {{Anchor|Saint Boy}} just under § 2020 Tokyo Olympics, and redirect to Annika Schleu#Saint Boy. That is how I would do it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Why should it redirect to Annika Schleu and not Gulnaz Gubaydullina? Jay 💬 11:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, Schleu beat the horse, and her trainer punched it. Gubaydullina, who also rode that horse, had not abused it. The abuses led to questioning whether horses should even be part of pentathlons, ultimately leading to the decision to drop horse riding from the sport. This information is covered in the Annika Schleu article, not Gulnaz Gubaydullina.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It was not very clear when I read the Annika Schleu article. After your explanation, when I read it again, it became clear. I see there are some details in the trainer Kim Raisner's article which are not present in Annika Schleu. Jay 💬 07:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The plot thickens.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Seriously? It didn't need to be relisted. Can I just change it to point to Annika Schleu#2020 Tokyo Olympics?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's not the current consensus. The ambiguity of the redirect seems to also leave deletion and retargeting to other locations as options. Thus, the relist ... need clearer consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• The best solution would be to have a summary of the incidents at the current target rather than just arbitrarily targeting one of the biographies where the horse is mentioned (Annika Schleu, Kim Raisner, Gulnaz Gubaydullina). -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely you mean Modern pentathlon § Replacement of riding with obstacle course racing and not the current target of Modern pentathlon at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's which has zero content about the horse, the riders or the incident! However, the details of Annika Schleu's involvement, including the mention of the horse's name, is irrelevant to the broader subject of removing riding from the pentathlon. So its location within article Annika Schleu is appropriate since that is the horse Schleu was sanctioned for abusing. The horse itself is not notable. I'm sure there's a redirect solely for when someone wants to search... "I remember something about a horse named Saint Boy in the pentathlon. What was that?"   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I meant exactly what I said. The incidents regarding Saint Boy occurred during Modern pentathlon at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's, so there should be a write up at that page of what happened. I am aware that has not yet been added. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:01, 31 August 2024 (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) 20:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Minister for Cities

• Minister for Cities → Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government#List of ministers for cities  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Minister for cities → Cabinet Office#Ministers and Civil Servants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not sure if this is the best target as Minister for Cities (Australia) exists - also not sure if that is the best title for that article either. I'm not familiar with the recent political cabinet reshuffling so there might be content forking between the current target and Minister for Cities (Australia). Fork99 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia) since that article is no longer a redirect in and of itself. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

When I created the redirect (Minister for Cities), I wasn't aware that the Minister for Cities (Australia) page existed already. In that case, I am happy for the redirect to be deleted straight up or redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia). Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree – if that's the primary topic, it should be moved to the title "Minister for Cities", and if it's not the primary topic then "Minister for Cities" shouldn't redirect there. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note I've added the lowercase Minister for cities redirect to this discussion as they should both lead to the same place. The target section of that redirect no longer mentions a minister for cities though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Set index this and similar titles seem to be created regularly in different parts of the world with none obviously primary. In a few minutes searching I found all the following:
  • City Minister,
  • Regional minister#Developments since 2010
  • Minister for Planning (New South Wales)#Cities
  • Minister for Cities (Australia)
  • Minister for the Environment and Water (Australia)#List of ministers for cities and the built environment
  • Angus Taylor (politician)#Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation
  • Minister for Cities and Rural Areas (mentioned at Frederiksen II Cabinet#List of ministers)
  • Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population (mentioned at First Morrison ministry#Outer ministry
  • Minister for cities and urban development (Cote D'Ivoire, mentioned at François Amichia)
  • State Secretary for Cities (mentioned at Borne government#State Secretaries)
  • Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy and a "Minister for cities" (mentioned at Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care (Scotland)

  (some might be duplicates, I've run out of time to sort and sanitise). Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. The UK had a Minister from Cities from 2011-15, before the post was merged into other ministries, see Regional_minister#Developments_since_2010. The UK also has the similarly named City Minister (2008-present), which is actually responsible for the City of London financial district not cities, but could easily be confused. Thryduulf has found several other similarly named positions in other countries. So while the Australian post might be the extant position that most closely matches the exact redirect phrasing, it would be better if both capitalisations led to a Minister for Cities (disambiguation) page. Modest Genius ^talk 10:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest moving Minister for Cities (Australia) → Minister for Cities and moving Minister for Cities → Minister for Cities (disambiguation). The Australian portfolio (being extant) is the primary topic. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate/set indexify per Thryduulf and Modest Genius. Term is too generic for a primary topic redirect to a specific position. C F A 💬 21:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: A requested move was made regarding these redirects and procedurally closed + no consensus because this discussion is ongoing; permalink: Special:Permalink/1240763459. Fork99 (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. There is also a Ministry of Cities in Brazil. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions seems split between creating a disambiguation page at the base title, or claiming Minister for Cities (Australia) is the primary topic. (Either way, seems a disambiguation page needs to be created somewhere ... but is that "somewhere" the base title or a title ending with "(disambiguation)"?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Per CFA, I also think that the title is too ambiguous and generic to have a primary topic - the Australian one might be "extant" per DilatoryRevolution as of right now, but this could change in the future as political portfolios get shuffled around fairly often. Fork99 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate/setindexify at minister for cities; as WP:DIFFCAPS it should not redirect to the Australian topic in any case. A generic term and multiple non-Aussie uses; the lower case form would be appropriate for grouping in "secretary" etc. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Bīn

• Bīn → Been  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

What the! Should redirect to Bin instead, surely. Remsense ‥ 诉 15:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

that's apparently a hanyu pinyin reading for... a bunch of old(?) chinese lemmas. i got nothing. delete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I imagine the Been rendering corresponds to another orthography, but it's simply not the best redirect I don't think. Remsense ‥ 诉 15:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

i think "been" would rely too much on one accent of one language in certain conditions, so i don't think that one would work either cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or soft redirect. This is a transcription of multiple different Chinese characters that have meanings including "visitor, guest", "in a hurry", "today", "elegant, refined", "place", "sprinting, quick" and pronunciations including "wǎng", "bin", "bin", "ban", "pîn", "kǔn", "kwan" (both a far from complete lists). I'm not seeing any obvious primary topic in English. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• This used to be a disambig page with entries of Pungi and Veena, and Shhhnotsoloud redirected it to the current target with Redirect to other disambiguation page that contains all the entries. Pungi does have this term in its lead. Jay 💬 11:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• REtarget to bin (disambiguation), and add any entries that are needed, such as pointed out by Jay -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

April 8, 2024 (Monday)

• April 8, 2024 (Monday) → Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused, unlikely search term since April 8, 2024 exists and points to the same place. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Retarget or delete: I am in favor of either changing the target back to where I originally had it (I had it there for the purposes of the hatnote which I have just removed because someone retargeted it to the eclipse article) or deleting the redirect. Entirely up to you; I’ll back either option. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Casey Simpson

• Casey Simpson → Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn#Cast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RETURNTORED "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." applies. Name is listed but no information about the subject is in the current target and in the many potential alternative targets that just list had an acting role. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This kind of link is unhelpful and misleading for the reader. Reasonably expecting that the link will deliver some general information about the subject, the reader instead finds only that the subject was an actor in a particular film, with no explanation of why that film was selected. This is a counter-intuitive and bad user experience. Tobyhoward (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A?

• A? → Aalto University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article. Edit summary for creation says "look at the logo" but the logo is "A!" mwwv ^converse∫_edits 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The old logo when the redir was created in 2022 was "A?", as still shown on it's page in Finnish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinderboff (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• delete as vague, regardless of previous logos. seemingly not well-covered enough to warrant keeping, very unlikely that it's the primary topic for a common letter followed by one of two common punctuation marks. also, come on, there's no apostrophe in "its" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Cogsan. In addition, this could plausibly be a phonetic misspelling of Eh?. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to A (disambiguation), and itemize there (the university can be listed with 'A?', 'A!', 'A"' (A-double-quote) logo variants; other uses of "A?" can also be listed -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Don't delete — valid search term based on the university logo, but still vague. So leaning towards retargetting to the DAB page. Cremastra (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The five sauces

• The five sauces → Sauce#French cuisine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

refers to the french mother sauces (as there's currently 5 of them). was going to retarget there and call it a day, but there's a non-zero chance that there's another instances of five sauces i'm missing. opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

on a semi-related note, grand sauce is also a redirect to sauce. gonna be a naughty bold boy and do with it whatever is done with this one cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Exactly what is the problem? Andrewa (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to French mother sauces. Though "five sauces" is potentially ambiguous, in regards to content on enwiki, the French meaning is clearly the primary topic, so we should target the main article rather than a section at a broader article. (And I support retargeting grand sauce there as well, though am surprised we don't have grand sauces as a redirect.) Mdewman6 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• retarget to French mother sauces. There's no ambiguity here, the 'five' term is very commonly used, even though the number has varied historically according to some different sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Living Marxism (US)

• Living Marxism (US) → International Council Correspondence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, failed to verify the relationship with the target. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The target article includes In 1938, it changed its name to Living Marxism and includes a source that verifies this. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Weaner

• Weaner → Weanling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Would this be better directed to Wiener as a misspelling? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep it the way it is. I expanded the article and added sources... especially to explain weaner.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Paisley

• Dr. Paisley → Ian Paisley  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't imagine this common of a name would be unambiguously affiliated with the target, who doesn't appear to have actually been a physician. They did have an honorary doctorate, but I don't believe that's enough for this to be a valid redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Paisley (name). I created the redir because I saw a source referencing him as "Dr. Paisley", I didn't know that it was a common English surname. Zinderboff(talk) 14:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Contrary to the nom's imagination, this is actually unambiguous. The only other person mentioned at Paisley (name) with a doctorate is Paisley Currah and I can find no evidence that he is referred to as "Dr. Paisley". Indeed googling "Dr Paisley" Currah -"Dr Paisley Currah" returns only a single result [3] which actually uses "Dr Paisley Currah" but has a linebreak between his first and surnames. On the contrary, Ian Paisley is referred to as "Dr. Paisley", see e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7] Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Paisley (name) Way too ambiguous. When I search "Dr. Paisley," I get loads of hits and very few of them are for the current target. Admittedly, most of the hits are for non-notable individuals, but I don't think we should assume readers are specifically searching for Ian Paisley. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  When there is only one notable person with a name, we redirect to that person regardless of how many non-notable individuals also have that name. There is no reason not to do the same here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, this is a very solid reference to one particular person. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Histionotophorus

• Histionotophorus → Handfish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Linked exclusively from its target: a WP:REDYES situation where a circular link does no good. Cremastra (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Second attempted assassination of Donald Trump

• Second attempted assassination of Donald Trump → Trump International Golf Club shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Someone attempted to assassinate Donald Trump in 2016 (2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident), so the second assassination attempt would be the one in Pennsylvania. With that in mind, I think the target of this redirect should be Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Security incidents involving Donald Trump. I think the span of time and exactly how things have been covered makes this ambiguous. Particularly because that lists three incidents before this year that could plausibly be thought of as assassination attempts (forklift, ricin, ricin). Skynxnex (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Security incidents involving Donald Trump. Too ambiguous for any one incident to be the target. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Immediate procedural close. Seems this redirect/title has been mentioned multiple times at Talk:Trump International Golf Club shooting#Requested move 15 September 2024 as a location to move the current target of this redirect, Trump International Golf Club shooting. Also, this RfD was opened after the aforementioned move request; having two discussions at two different venues which could affect the same page/title is not cohesive to form adequate/accurate consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Security incidents involving Donald Trump lists at least four assassination attempts before the July attempt, and the list is almost certainly incomplete. We cannot assign numbers to any of these attempts with 100% certainty. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• 'Revert' to this version. I think suggesting common parlance is that the link goes to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump only two months after that incident is stretching what common parlance means. alternatively, would be fine with retargeting to Security incidents involving Donald Trump, especially if move discussion decides to merge the new article in. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Bluethricecreamman you probably meant this comment to go in the section below for "Donald Trump shooting"? Skynxnex (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I will move this accordingly. mobile edits and lack of sleep i suppose are the cause. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump shooting

• Donald Trump shooting → Attempted assassination of Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Security incidents involving Donald Trump as there have been multiple gun incidents concerning Donald Trump listed; which are listed in this suggested target article. There's the Pennsylvanian incident at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (July) and the one from today in Florida Trump International Golf Club shooting (September) amongst other incidents -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The Pennsylvania one is the clear primary topic. None of the other ones caused any injuries, and the golf one is the only other one that could even be called a shooting. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as primary topic. C F A 💬 13:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as primary topic Ecpiandy (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep no others that are "shootings". Natg 19 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Housekeeping note: I don't know how to do all of the paperwork for it, but there are a few other redirects that should probably be bundled into this discussion, namely Trump shooting and Shooting of Donald Trump. Left guide (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Revert to this version. I think suggesting common parlance is that the link goes to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump only two months after that incident is stretching what common parlance means. alternatively, would be fine with retargeting to Security incidents involving Donald Trump, especially if move discussion decides to merge the new article in. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Over by over

• Over by over → Liveblogging  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Suggest deletion unless a sourced use can be added to target or elsewhere enwiki Mdewman6 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete for no good target. Every hit is related to cricket (directly or by metaphor) not blogging (although google does reveal some live blogging of cricket) but none of them would make a good target for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Older

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 15
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 14
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 12
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 11

Old business

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 10
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 8
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 7
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 6
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 5
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 4
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 2
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 1
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 30
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 29
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 28
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 26
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 25
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 23
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 22
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 21
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 20
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 19
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 18
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 17