Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 21, 2023.

Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Sylvester Stallone#Early life. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was born Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone. Suggest deleting. ---ErceÇamurOfficial — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. His full name is mentioned in the Early Life section of the article: Many biographies of Stallone indicate that his birth name is Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone. CycloneYoris talk! 21:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak refine to Sylvester Stallone#Early life where this is explained but keeping as is per CycloneYoris is also fine. A7V2 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My sense is that names like this normally don't go to a particular section but just the article. Probably the mention in the article should be bolded instead of italic. I'm fine with a refine per A7V2 if that is the consensus as well. Skynxnex (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to "Early life" as redirect creator (I wasn't notified, so good thing I frequent RfD). This is not his birth name, but it's mentioned often enough to make it a likely search term anyway. Google Books and the Internet Archive alone find plenty of usages in print media. I'll retag it with {{R from incorrect name}} and suggest refining to make the situation clearer to readers. Glades12 (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Sir James Lovelock[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never knighted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to be a common error looking online. Eg [1], [2], and an interview/bio even makes a joke about this confusion [3]. A7V2 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per A7V2's findings, though I'm not completely sure if it's worth keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 00:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

.mpk[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. I don’t see any reliable sources talking about this file format either. If we do delete this redirect, we should remove the mention of this file format at MPK. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. It's not mentioned in List of file formats either --Lenticel (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for @Pizzaplayer219: From some digging, I found that "Turok 64 Official Source Code Analysis" from the website Retro Reversing is used as a source twice and it does contain a sentence mentioning the .mpk file format: If you run Turok in an emulator and reach a save point you can get the Memory Pak file .mpk that the emulator saves and edit it in a Hex Editor of your choice. Or you can open it in an online MPK editor such as MPKEdit. Additionally, there is pc.net's page on .mpk with pc.net being used as a citation at .DS_Store. Would either of these count as a reliable source or do the articles .DS_Store, Doctor V64, and Game development kit need to be fixed? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a discussion about the reliability of these sources here. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 00:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have to have a discussion, then there is a good likelihood that neither are reliable and that I can go make the edits to those articles. Additionally, that would mean that we still do not have any reliable source for the file format. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that there is no apparently reliability for either source, I would say delete for now. If a future reliable source exists either in the near or far future, then I would support restoring the first redirect and adding a mention to the List of file formats. For now though, there just doesn't seem to be enough to keep these redirects in the present. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Nu64[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 00:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. search results indicates that the Nintendo 64 is not primary topic. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned within the article. According to a cursory search, Nu64 stands for Nintendo Ultra 64, and was the early name for the console before "ultra" was discarded. It also seems to refer to a skincare product. However, it is non-notable and the company who makes them does not have an article. I suggest refining to the Developments section where it is mentioned in its full name. Carpimaps (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Nu64" was the original abbreviation for the target subject since it was originally called the "Nintendo Ultra". Given this and since the nominator had provided no information about what other subjects on Wikipedia could be called "Nu64", the current setup is correct. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wikipedia:AI[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence. Current target page is long deprecated and not short of other shortcuts either way. WP:AI only has a modest 196 incoming links, so that also shouldn't be a big hurdle. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if I search up WP:AI, I would expect it to go to Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence, not a historical page for what looks like a odd form of drafting. It may have been the primary topic when the redirect was created, but the primary topic has changed due to new advanced in AI technology. Carpimaps (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to support, but pageviews show otherwise. Here is a pageviews comparison of the shortcut, and the current and proposed targets for the last one year. The incubator was getting 20+ daily views, but apparently not all of it from the shortcut. The artifical intelligence page has shot up in the last two months. But until the shortcut or the incubator views don't die down, the long deprecated claim cannot be substantiated. A disambiguation is warranted though. Jay 💬 06:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC to close down Incubator took place nine years ago, that's where I got the "long deprecated" status from. I wasn't exactly around back then and can't confidently judge if there's a reason someone today would seek that page out for anything beyond historical reference. But I do still feel the writing on the wall is clear enough for a direct link to the artificial intelligence info page with a hatnote at the top to be a more definitive solution in this case. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as more justifiable redirect. CharlesWain (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps DAB instead to avoid breaking links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Silikonz💬 23:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Just add a hatnote at the Artificial Intelligence page. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposal to retarget. The Article Incubator's time is well over, and we should evolve to point to the most relevant content our community is looking for. Full disclosure - I created the Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence page in the first place. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Regula Monachorum[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Jay 💬 17:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, no clear possble retargets. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: if no consensus is found and no user has proposed to keep the redirect as is, then any of the solution proposed is better than the current target. I leave that up to the RfD closer. But one thing is sure: if there is no will to keep this redirect as it is, then it should not be kept as it is. Veverve (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem that Regula Monachorum, "the Rule of the Monks", is used as a title. (eg. [5]) A mention could probably be added with a reference if necessary, however it seems to be a title shared with other works; disambiguation would probably be better than hatnotes in this case since it's not clear that there's a primary topic. WP:TWODABS requires only a minimum of two entries, which can be met with a link to the section at Rule of Saint Columbanus.
@Presidentman: Are there any other suggested targets? I think a draft for a disambiguation page would help. – Scyrme (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scyrme: @Veverve: I've drafted a disambiguation page based on this list. It's possible there are other works with the same title but haven't found a reference yet. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman: I support this DAB. However, there is no mention of Rule for Monks at Isidore of Seville and Aurelianus of Arles.
As a sidenote, I cannot access the page in your link, it displays a message telling me I cannot access it. Veverve (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: I've added mentions at both articles. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Infinity Pool[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Infinity Pool

Civil Incorporation of Church Property[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus. There was no agreement between deleting and retargeting. There were multiple retarget suggestions. There was opposition to Trusteeism. Religious corporation was the final suggestion, and we may have received further comments, but the discussion was stretched already with three relists.

There was no support for the current target, hence retargeting to Corporation#History as a target that was brought up by multiple voters. No prejudice against renaming the redirect to sentence case as Civil incorporation of church property.

Deleting Incorporation of Church Property, Civil that uses the comma that was probably done to adjust the alphabetical order of entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Jay 💬 16:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion of the delete and retarget proposals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 05:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: if no consensus if found but no one proposes to keep the current target, then either retargetting or deletion is fine. Keeping the redirects as they are is not an acceptable outcome. Veverve (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these redirects follow the wording of this catholic.com article, an unabridged entry from the original Catholic Encyclopedia, so I think Peter James is right. I don't agree with the suggestion of retargetting to Trusteeism, as that article doesn't mention or even use the words "incorporation" or "corporation" anywhere in the body of the article. The catholic.com article does mention lay trustees, but civil incorporation seems to be a distinct topic (unless I'm mistaken).
Corporation § History does briefly mention this topic, but since both redirects use title case not sentence case I actually think it's better to delete both. The second one especially, as the use of the comma is unusual and was probably done to adjust the alphabetical order of entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia; that exact phrasing is not a likely search query in the era of the search engines.
I don't object to replacing the first with its lowercase counterpart, Civil incorporation of church property, with the target Corporation § History or Religious corporation. The topic does appear in sources other than the Catholic Encylcopedia, eg. this 2004 publication; I think a redirect could be helpful, perhaps even as an {{r with possibilities}}. The better target might be Religious corporation, if others agree that it's relevant, as there's much more coverage there (although unfortunately it's US-centric). – Scyrme (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Nigerian fortune tellers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#Nigerian fortune tellers

Jarpnoonk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Jarpnoonk

Apocrypha (fiction)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#Apocrypha (fiction)

Seven Two[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. There seems to be a rough consensus that some form of disambiguation is appropriate, though I don't think there is a consensus (yet) to merge it to 72. It's possible that consensus could emerge after another relist but we've already been through 3 so time is up. Legoktm (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be retargeted to 7two because Seven Two isn’t mentioned anywhere in the current target except the hatnote. Bassie f (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The redirect was presumably created because seven two offsuit is the worst possible starting hand in Texas hold 'em. This is indeed not mentioned at the current target, though it probably should be. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: But if the result is keep or no consensus will someone put the Australian TV channel in the hatnote? Bassie f (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 7two per nom. It does seem as though mention should be added to the current target, and a hatnote back would be helpful if mention is added. A7V2 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this term could also refer to the number 72. Duckmather (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true. Though I think it's fairly unlikely (certainly not going to be the primary topic), it could also be added to the/a hatnote. A7V2 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the hatnote at the current target already had a song, I thought Seven Two qualified as a dab page which I have drafted at the redirect. I did not consider the song as a primary topic since it is not an article title, but is a one-liner mention at its target. I have also not included the current target as there is no mention. Jay 💬 03:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the drafted DAB…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also not added Tavix's suggested link to the dab as I don't know if the hand is called by the words "seven two", or the number "72". Jay 💬 04:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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! 20:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I as the nominator of this discussion, was originally going to say Retarget to 7two, but I have changed my decision, to Disambiguate. From Bassie f (his talk page) 04:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bushy tailed tree rat[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another joke redirect that seems to have no basis in reality. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Bushy-tailed woodrat per WP:CHEAP and Jay. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently originated as a joke, and isn't Wikipedia place to invent new common names for bushy-tailed woodrats. Plantdrew (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All search results for this exact phrase pertain to squirrels, not woodrats; a retarget would not help anyone find what they are looking for. As with rats with bushy tails, I don't think minor memes like this make helpful redirects; someone searching a joke name is probably not looking for a serious article about squirrels. Most likely that someone would search for this on Google or another search engine, in which case the redirect will only encourage the search engine to promote the Wikipedia article rather than provide the searcher with the memes they're actually looking for. If someone does enter this directly into Wikipedia's own search bar (which is unlikely), it's better to just let the search engine handle it; those results bring up a number of partial matches including the suggested woodrat article, a redirect to that particular partial match isn't needed. – Scyrme (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNstingray / Plantdrew / Scyrme, can you provide a reference to what the joke / joke meme is? Agree that most external search results lead to squirrel. Jay 💬 18:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that deep; it's just a silly name. I don't know the origin; probably started as a joke among people who have a love-hate relationship with squirrels (maybe gardeners who are often annnoyed that squirrels are eating all the bird seed they leave out in the garden). – Scyrme (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Older results from around 2007-2011 seem to be North American homeowners who find them to a bit of nuisance, particularly grey squirrels. The oldest result I could find was actually an Amazon review from 2005, but that's clearly not the origin. If there was an original reference it's probably lost to time. – Scyrme (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Rats with bushy tails[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Same situation. Delete entirely, or possibly redirect to Bushy-tailed woodrat. But even then, it is a joke redirect that is not used to describe the target page. TNstingray (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with you. I would delete it.It's not but at the same time it's as streching as wanting to do a redirecting like "Rats with a tail" Gimly24 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed the previous RfD from 2010. Jay 💬 19:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Despite what the previous RfD says about the Google searches, a modern Google search only returns results for the Bushy-tailed woodrat. I'd support retargeting this to that. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if more people agree with the retarget.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Retargeting would be confusing. No one who types that in is going to be looking for the bushy-tailed woodrat. MClay1 (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently originated as a joke, and isn't Wikipedia place to invent new common names for bushy-tailed woodrats. Plantdrew (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - TheManInTheBlackHat's findings are true only if you simply search rats with bushy tails (no quotes), however, contrary to those findings, when searching the exact phrase "rats+with+bushy+tails" or even simply "rats with bushy tails" (including quotes) all the results are for squirrels. I don't think minor memes make helpful redirects; someone searching a joke name is probably not looking for a serious article about squirrels. Regarding precedent, there is a page for danger noodle but it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary (per its RfD), and even then only because it gets millions of hits on search engines (in comparison, this only gets a few thousand hits and has no Wiktionary entry). – Scyrme (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

How to[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate.

"How to" should redirect to a disambig, or at least something less specific than this. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most relevant target I can find is probably Owner's manual, which is where "Instruction manual" redirects. So I guess Redirect there, although there should probably be a more abstract page created at some point discussing the concept of instructions. Both "Instruction" and "Guide (disambiguation)" are disambiguation pages (the article at Guide is about the occupation), but are probably not appropriate for "How to" as they are a grab-bag of concepts under those names, the majority of which are not relevant to "How to". 193.37.240.34 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: could also refer to How 2. Launchballer 17:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I oppose retargeting to How 2 due to WP:SMALLDETAILS and the nominated phrase having a specific meeting that is not exclusive to How 2 at all where redirecting there could be a WP:SURPRISE. I oppose redirecting to Owner's manual since the concept of "How to" is not exclusive to that either. As an encyclopedia, the best option at the present time would have Wikipedia's search results provide probable answers for what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In case it is relevant, there is Wiktionary:how-to. Wiktionary:how to also exists, but mostly points back to how-to. Additionally, there is a related redirect called How-to that is part of Category:Redirects with history. "How to" used to point to "How-to" when it was an article until this 2021 AfD. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it's not unlikely someone searching this is looking for something like Help:Contents, so I think if disambiguated that should be included. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to redirect to that directly given there are valid alternate targets. A7V2 (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hatnote at Help would be useful I think. A7V2 (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vague, ambiguous, and WP:NOTHOWTO. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vague, not suitable for -pedia. BhamBoi (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about Randall Munroe's book How To: Absurd Scientific Advice for Common Real-World Problems? I think this is a very likely search term for the article about that book. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the IP who originally suggested the redirect, I will however change my !vote to Disambiguate per the above draft given the multiple suggested notable targets that come under this term. I don't believe the arguments for deletion are particularly well articulated or credible here. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposed dab --Lenticel (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to How To: Absurd Scientific Advice for Common Real-World Problems or DAB. The book is likely a full match due to having a subtitle bu t subtitles are often omitted so don't delete even if vague. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per draft at How To, and comments that show an evident lack of a primary topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per LaundryPizza03 et al. The draft disambiguation page at How To seems quite reasonable so retarget How to to How To. Skynxnex (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or retarget to the disambiguation page at How To. Hut 8.5 18:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any plausible target for this. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you think the targets at the draft at How To are plausible? – Scyrme (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the proposed disambiguation page, I think that might be the best that can be done. I strike my delete vote. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Frederick Law Olmsted Park[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Frederick Law Olmsted Park

Muslim rule in South Asia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Muslim rule in South Asia

Regional Center[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Regional Center

OneGet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#OneGet

E³[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like all of these redirects deleted because we usually don't use E3 redirects with the title "E³" in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.209.40.250 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all "E³" doesn't appear to be a stylized way to refer to this event. No use on enwiki or through a Google search AFAICT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep up to 2006, delete after – E³ appears to be a former stylised way to refer to the event, used 1995–2006. This is also the former name of the E3 article for a significant amount of time, so at the very least E³ should stay. Everything from 2007 onwards can be deleted, since the exponent was no longer used within the event's name. Randi Moth (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - non-standard approach to event name. --Masem (t) 14:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete (though for me only weak delete) exactly per Randi Moth. This styalisation used to be used so should certainly be kept for the years it was used and for the parent article. A7V2 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's agreement to delete some of the redirects, but still some disagreement on whether only to delete some or to delete all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several of these nominations had their targets listed incorrectly as they did not include the section redirect: All redirects that did not have a matching non-superscript title were listed as targeting E3 when they actually targeted E3#Event history. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:CHEAP, them being useful for navigation, and the fact that they are unambiguous. If the stylization was used at any point, any reader could reasonably believe they could use the stylization to search up years in which the stylization may not have been applicable. (However, with all this being said, for the redirects that target E3#Event history, if those were bundled by themselves with their "E3" counterparts, I'd consider "weak delete" on those per WP:REDLINK, but it seems their current redirection is appropriate to make them {{R with possibilities}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Presidentman and Masem. I don't agree with Randi Moth nor Steel1943. 69.165.146.227 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why? Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This styalisation was never used for the conventions. 45.72.238.106 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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! 01:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as a useless and ambiguous combination. I do not think people are going to use these terms in search at all in a manner that is actually useful. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – In regards to proving my statement that it was used 1995–2006 and it was used as the article's title, since it was doubted:
  • Talk:E3/Archive 1#Name – A 2006 discussion on the E3's page on regards of the page name that resulted in E³ temporarily being the title. Searching through the edit history of the page, E³ was used from creation on 2002-08-10 to a move to E3 on 2005-04-25, and then there was a smaller WP:MOVEWAR in 2006 between the two versions, started by the linked topic and with several other related topics within the same archive. This settled in 2007 because E³ was abandoned as an official stylised name. This move war and that it was used 2002–2005 in itself should be reason enough to keep E³ specifically, and several links to it still survive on Wikipedia and may survive outside of it.
  • Archive of E3's site in 2006, showing E³ being used (though mixed with E3), which is as latest as it was used. This is still e3expo.com, though it redirects to e3insider.com.
  • Archive of E3's site in 1998, showing E³ being used, which is the earliest where Internet Archive stores it.
  • IGN's article on E3 1995, which does use "E3", but has a photograph of the exposition's building, which shows a logo that is stylised in superscript. However, this is not very reliable as an indicator that it was used in writing, and from some less-reliable sources I've found, the exponent in the logo was lost in 1996 and never returned, despite the fact that the exponent was certainly still used officially in writing 1998–2006 as per the archived E3 website. File:E3 1995 logo.png also shows the logo with an exponent, but it's not reliably sourced.
I didn't do in-depth research, so I won't prove that it was actually used 1995–1997, though 1998–2006 is provable with the Internet Archive. This is no longer present in 2007 versions of the E3 website and later. I still would insist on Keep up to 2006, delete after, but the ground for keeping 1995–1997 redirects is more shaky. Randi Moth (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This right here is why I'm "keep all". If it was used somewhere, then might as well have the terms redirect to all existing renditions for ease of navigation. I mean, these are redirects ... not article titles. Redirects are meant to assist with navigation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: this is definitely stylized as, but it seems unlikely that someone would go through the copy-paste or Unicode effort of making the superscript instead of just typing E3 or even E^3 (which seems more likely to me typing-wise, but doesn't exist.) BhamBoi (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all exactly per WP:CHEAP and Steel 1943. It would be easier to navigate. Also, please create a redirect from E³ 2023 to E3 2023. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Redirects are cheap, and these are reasonable (albeit likely uncommon) search terms. There is no reason to suspect that there is any other primary topic for any of these redirects, so keeping them makes the most sense to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Anal/oral sex[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. Given the ambiguity of the redirect title, I doubt a better target exists, so I recommend deletion. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is mentioned at the target, specifically in the lead: It is also called anal–oral contact and anal–oral sex. So no ambiguity whatsoever (as the nom states), and therefore no reason for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The en dash and slash do not mean the same thing. I would say ambiguity certainly still exists. An anonymous username, not my real name 12:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the difference between both is minimal and highly subjective, not enough to warrant deletion. Some readers may not even notice, and that is why the redirect creator labeled this as a {{R from alternate punctuation}} when they created this in 2009. CycloneYoris talk! 21:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CycloneYoris. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a very unlikely search term with the slash. In the last month it has a total of 1 page view, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uncommon, but reasonable search term. There aren't any other reasonable targets, so keeping makes most sense. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Incorrect use of slash to indicate association. The usage and meaning of slash is different, and dash is different. The target has sufficient redirects including the ones mentioned by Cyclone. Jay 💬 03:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

First imperialist war[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#First imperialist war

Redirects from specific planets and stars to lists of exoplanets[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Keep, since these point to relevant information and circular redirects can be de-linked on the target page. However, at the end of the discussion, there was some brief discussion on other potential targets, so no prejudice towards renominating individual redirects if there is a suitable target. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be misleading users to thinking that we have articles where we don't. All of the redirects that are planets appear as circular links on the lists, while the stars are not directly mentioned anywhere on the lists. While these exoplanets and their host stars are likely all non-notable, these redirects will discourage article creation if they are or become notable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These lists have information on these planets and their host stars, similarly to the list of minor planets which has many redirects to its sub-lists from specific minor planets. The exoplanets can be de-linked from the lists as long as they're redirects to them. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SevenSpheres. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (now Weak delete planets, see below for stars) per nom, WP:REDLINK and WP:RFD#D10. It is silly having some planets as redlinks and others as unlinked. Searching will still lead to the relevant page. A7V2 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RFD#D10 does not apply, since most of these objects are likely insufficiently notable for article creation, and the target lists contain substantial information on them. Do you also support deletion of the 25,000+ minor planet redirects? SevenSpheres (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue I have is that there are so many of these, some are redlinks and some are not. Why have redirects for some and not others? And whether or not WP:RFD#D10 applies depends on your interpretation of plausible (which I recognise for planets is quite a lot less likely than stars). However, that being said, there is no mention of the stars at these targets, other than in the names of the planets (and certainly there is no information about them) and so I am very strongly in favour of deleting those (namely HD 285507, Gaia-1, Gaia-2 and K2-371). They are all the more misleading due to links such as the footnote on Taurus (constellation) where someone following it will be left confused. A7V2 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Gaia-1/Gaia-1b and Gaia-2/Gaia-2b are also mentioned at Gaia (spacecraft)#Significant results, though with less information. If there is a consensus to delete, retargeting these should be considered. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a sensible target if there is some information, when the exoplanet is not a notable topic by itself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realized now that the Kepler planet redirects can be retargeted to the appropriate sublists of List of exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably have been better to discuss the planets and stars separately; that at least would've made it clear which are stars and which are planets. Regarding stars, I think redirecting to a list of exoplanets is not appropriate. Are there lists of stars that mention them to which they could be retargeted, or has someone checked and confirmed that there are no mentions anywhere on Wikipedia? – Scyrme (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Church rank[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to (ranks within denominations? denominations ranked according to their number of faithfuls?). It is also misleading and biased, as not all ranks in churches are within the Catholic Church. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was moved to Church rank (Catholic) then redirected. If it's ranks within denominations, as was intended, Ecclesiastical polity is the relevant article. Peter James (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the obvious solution, we should just do it and close this discussion. ··gracefool 💬 03:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not oppose this retarget, but due to the vagueness of the expression I would still prefer for this redirect to be deleted. Veverve (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect was used in Vestment#Byzantine Rite where I have replaced it with Church rank (Catholic). The usage there was: The three forms of stole (Orarion, Epitrachelion, and Omophorion) are marks of rank. Jay 💬 05:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The proper target would be an article on church hierarchy, but apart from the one on the Catholic Church, we have nothing like that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

David McGrath[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Dave McGrath. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target of redirect nowhere found in article. Not obvious what the purpose of the redirect is.

There is a draft, Draft:David McGrath, which is in AFC. The draft has not been approved or declined at this time. If the unnecessary redirect is deleted, disambiguation will not be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if more people agree with the retarget.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as previously proposed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dennis Rogers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#Dennis Rogers

Taurus cattle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this stay at the current redirect (Cattle), or should it be redirected to Taurus Project? TNstingray (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be redirected to Taurus Project, it's the name for the breed Taurus cattle and not for any taurine cattle, Justlettersandnumbers is wrong on that. DFoidl (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @DFoidl. Personally, with the enormous quantities of cattle breeds, it wouldn't serve much use to redirect a breed to the species (Taurine cattle). Aswell, the Taurus Project page specifically mentions the Taurus cattle herds. I would redirect it to Taurus project with similar reasons as DFoidl. Gimly24 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Taurus Project where this breed is discussed. A7V2 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. Gimly24 (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not re-target. This is among the most significant and numerous of all domestic animal species (or sub-species, depending on how you think it should be systematically classified). It's a very large and important topic, and should definitely be an article – as it was until this inconclusive discussion last year. Whether that page should be at this title, at Taurine cattle, at European cattle, at Bos taurus, at Bos taurus taurus or at Bos primigenius taurus I don't know or greatly care, but all the names should lead to the same place. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand that "Taurus cattle" is not the same as "taurine cattle" or don't you understand? It should be redirected as it is a term that refers to a specific type of cattle and not just any taurine cattle. DFoidl (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, the breed should not be confused with the species. It should be re-targeted to Taurus Project. Gimly24 (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Justlettersandnumbers with the exact same arguments. The term should not redirect to some project about cattle. Jay 💬 03:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand that "Taurus cattle" refers to a specific breed bred by exactly that project and not just any taurine cattle? Justlettersandnumbers was plain wrong on that when he moved the article. DFoidl (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If nobody can come up with a valid argument against redirecting it, I'm going to redirect it during the next few days. DFoidl (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfD does not work that way. An admin or an un-involved editor has to close the discussion. See WP:NACD. Jay 💬 11:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a breed called "Taurus cattle", then that can have its article. A project that is called Taurus and makes use of the Taurus species for breeding is not that article. On the other hand, the current target is about the species of cattle Bos taurus. Jay 💬 10:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Originally, the article was about the breed called "Taurus cattle", then our dear Justlettersandnumbers moved it to "Taurus Project" and changed the introduction accordingly. I'd second changing it back to the original article (Taurus cattle). DFoidl (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The titling or re-titling should be handled at Wikipedia:Requested moves, where the audience will be larger than Talk:Taurus Project. Jay 💬 11:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to note that Justlettersandnumbers moved/retitled the article without any prior discussion. So if that's legitimate, moving it back should be legitimate as well. DFoidl (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A page can be moved boldly, and does not require prior discussion if the mover thinks there is a good reason for it, and there will be no objection. And if someone disagrees, they can revert the move or discuss it. But if the new title has been in place for a long time (see WP:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves), the proper forum would be to take it to WP:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The page move was done in May 2022, so a revert at this stage will only be considered disruptive. Jay 💬 12:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, because the original title was there for several years, and now it has been moved not even a year ago, so I think no discussion is necessary. Anyway, I won't bother engaging in an edit war with our dear Justlettersandnumbers, how can I start a discussion to move it back to the original (and correct) title? DFoidl (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answer. If nobody can come up with a valid argument why "Taurus Project" shouldn't be moved back to Taurus cattle where it belongs, I'm going to do that in the next few days. DFoidl (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, WP:NACD. As for starting a move discussion, I have provided all relevant links above. I would suggest waiting for this RfD to close though. Jay 💬 15:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so no argument against the restoration of the original (and correct) version. Will do it in the next couple of days. DFoidl (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per A7V2. NotTriangle (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not seeing any evidence presented here that the Taurus Project is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the phrase 'taurus cattle'. Google is a gravely flawed instrument, but here's what I found on Scholar:
  • there's no point searching just for "taurus cattle", as the results are flooded with hits for "Bos taurus cattle"
  • a search for "in taurus cattle" gives 29 results, of which about 16 visibly confirm the presence of that string; all that I can see are about various aspects of taurine cattle, not one that I can verify relates to the re-creation project
  • a similar search for "of taurus cattle" gives 17 results, of which about 15 are immediately verifiable; three of them (Seasonal differences in the physiology of wild northern ruminants; In dialogue with the landscape; and Diversität, Verbreitung und Parasitenbefall der Wasserschnecken auf der Schmidtenhöhe (Koblenz)) appear to refer to the project, the others to other aspects of taurine cattle
  • for "the taurus cattle" I get 20 results, of which 16 verifiable; only one of them (the same Diversität article as above) seems to be about the project.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cattle breeding project, of course you don't find much about it on google scholar, man. Do you understand that there is a difference between "taurus cattle", which is very rarely used for taurine cattle in general because their nomenclatural name is Bos taurus, and "Taurus cattle" (with the T written in CAPITALS) which is the name for a specific type of cattle or don't you understand? It's no shame if you don't understand, although I think it is not that difficult to comprehend, actually. Thus, the page needs to be moved back to Taurus cattle, the way it had been for ten years ;-). DFoidl (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"(with the T written in CAPITALS)" - As a note, Wikipedia can't distinguish between titles that start with a capital letter or a lower case letter; the case of the first letter is always ignored. It's hardcoded into the website. The title has to distinguish the topics some other way. – Scyrme (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taurus cattle still refers to a specific type of cattle. DFoidl (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that. I'm only saying that on Wikipedia the title "Taurus cattle" and "taurus catle" are the same and can't be separated into two different pages. The first letter isn't enough to disambiguate a title if one of them is a proper noun normally indicated by capital letter. There's no way to make separate pages for Taurus cattle and taurus cattle. If you want to distinguish them you'd need to use something like Taurus cattle (breed). – Scyrme (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea DFoidl (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Justlettersandnumbers. The term "taurus cattle" is used to refer to Bos taurus (cattle) enough that I've heard it in general public discussion. A survey of available literature suggests most people consider "taurus cattle" effectively synonymous with Bos taurus, as Justlettersandnumbers says. I think that Template:Redirect-distinguish is of relevant utility here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as I already wrote, there is a difference between "Taurus cattle" and "taurus cattle" (CAPITALS), so that is not correct. I think that is not difficult to understand at all, however, I am not surprised that you support Justlettersandnumber's opinion ;-). Nevertheless, it should be moved back to the original title, the way it had been ten years (!). DFoidl (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is that the nomenclature "Taurus cattle" (capitalized or not, as that does not matter for Wikipedia's purposes) is predominantly used in reference to "cattle", also known as Bos taurus. There are a very limited number of sources—most not meeting the minimums set out in our reliable source standards—that use the term "Taurus cattle" to refer to a niche breed. You even acknowledge this limited context. If you can find a reason to change the redirect using policy (WP:COMMONNAME is a good first stop), that's different. As of right now, though, you haven't given any indication that this niche term should redirect away from its most common usage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. You Jokipedia guys do what you want anyway, it's a platform were only the "established" members determine what is in the articles. Not a "free encyclopedia" at all. DFoidl (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DFoidl: please remember to abide by our civility policy in discussions. Again, if you can provide clear and detailed evidence for your position, you will convince people; repeating things like "Jokipedia" only serves to diminish credibility. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I already told you, nothing gives you the justification to wave your finger at me. DFoidl (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not disambiguate? Taurus cattle was the name of the target article from its creation in 2014 until a bold move last year. It also accurately represents its main topic (the breed of the cattle rather than the project to create the breed). As for the alternative use of "taurus cattle" to refer to taurine cattle, that appears to be relatively rare (about two orders of magnitude less common than e.g. "Bos taurus cattle"). The use of the term for the new breed will presumably be even rarer, but I'm wondering how likely are readers to use the search term seeking the general article, given that we don't even have a redirect for the vastly more common term Bos taurus cattle. – Uanfala (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ural District[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Given the amount of discussion and the absence of any primary topic arguments, this outcome should not be taken to preclude further actions, like bold moves. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither redirect title is used as a general term for "oblast" or mentioned in the target after the top hatnote. Ural District could refer to the Ural Federal District (mentioned in the hatnote), the Ural Military District, or Oral, Kazakhstan (which the similarly-titled Ural`sk District and Oral District redirect to). Uralskaya Oblast could refer to West Kazakhstan Region (Uralsk Oblast redirects there), Ural Oblast, or Ural Oblast (Russian Empire). Any of these targets would be better than the broken anchor these currently target. Coolclawcat (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde!Franklin! 03:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Academy of Geneva[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. – Fayenatic London 21:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a disambiguation page listing University of Geneva and Rousseau Institute. Is the current target a correct redirect to a primary topic, or is there no primary topic here and the dab page should be restored? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suppress the redirection. Better than for a disambiguating page, the title "Academy of Geneva" should be kept in store for a possible (and legitimate) article on ... the Academy of Geneva, which was the name of the precursor of the University between 1559 and approximately 1860, and on which almost nothing is to be found in the present article on the University. --Sapphorain (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the university is the primary topic here, and the article should be expanded. FWIW fr-wiki lists the original name of Rousseau Institute as "École de Genève" not "Académie De Genève" as on enwiki. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • britannica.com says the Rousseau Institute is called Academy of Geneva (Académie De Genève), and is part of the University of Geneva. Academy of Geneva, apart from being the initial name of the University of Geneva, also seems to be the name for a 2007-founded academy under the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, and located at the Villa Moynier, a historic villa surrounded by a beautiful park with a view of Lake Geneva and Mont Blanc. Jay 💬 08:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Jay's findings above. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

1000000000000000000000 (number)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There is no agreement on a single target despite a second and third relist. There is no support for keeping the current target of Metric prefix. In order to make the disambiguated redirect entries consistent with the non-disambiguated ones, retargetting the disambiguated ones to their corresponding non-disambiguated ones. Jay 💬 13:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former redirects to now-BLAR'd yotta- and zetta-. Delete, as the current target doesn't provide any information on the numbers beyond the prefix name, and the search term isn't particularly plausible either. Randi Moth (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I've bundled in the redirects without the disambiguator to the RfD as retarget seems to be the consensus so far, yet without a consensus on where it should be redirected, which I believe should be consistent regardless of the presence of the disambiguator. Randi Moth (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Names of large numbers, where both are mentioned. These numbers are and respectively (sextillion and septillion in the short scale, trilliard and quadrillion in the long scale). Duckmather (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Duckmather. A7V2 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking, see below. A7V2 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Names of large numbers per Duckmather. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Note that 1000000000000000000000 and 1000000000000000000000000 without the "(number)" disambiguator exist and redirect to their sections in Orders of magnitude (numbers). I don't think that the redirects with the "(number)" disambiguator are necessary, but if they're to be kept, the target should be kept consistent, whether it's the ones with the disambiguator that are edited or the ones without the disambiguator. Randi Moth (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "(number)" disambiguator here is unnecessary, as there is nothing to disambiguate to. Also, no article links to these redirects, and the search term is not very plausible. 141Pr 20:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both per InterstellarGamer12321. Consider that 1000000000000 (number) already exists. MusiBedrock (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget: Per Randi Moth and A7V2, we should retarget the two listed redirects to Orders of magnitude (numbers) for consistency with the other (number) prefixes. Additionally, would expand this to cover 10^12 (number) and 10^15 (number) to follow for consistency with 10^13 (number) to 10^18 (number). Am not opposed to deleting all (number) redirects, but would prefer them to be discussed in one discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are multiple retarget suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Seeking consensus on retarget suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

BvM[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"BvM" is not mentioned in the article and this is easily confused with other uses of BVM. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: With a hatnote to BVM. WP:DIFFCAPS applies here as the lack of cap for just one of three letters is pretty likely to be intentional, and no one at BVM goes by a lowercase v with an uppercase M. TartarTorte 18:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a hatnote per Tartar. CycloneYoris talk! 15:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A hatnote at the target will confuse more, unless the subject is actually referred to by those initials. Jay 💬 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck off per the references provided by Tartar. Jay 💬 08:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very few people are known by acronyms, we should not start having redirects that invent them arbitrarily or we'll end up with lots of very confusing redirects. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Already voted above, but there are references from WP:RS referring to Bert van Marwijk as BvM. From The Guardian One change at the interval, but it’s from Peru. Pedro Aquino is on for Yoshimar Yotun, the only Peruvian to be booked in the opening half. How long will BvM leave it before he makes a switch? and from the Socceroo's twitter BvM: "I haven't told the players the line-up. They will know for 80% how I want to play, but not 100%.". From my view there's at least enough to argue that the abbreviation BvM isn't a neologism for wikipedia. TartarTorte 02:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote. Logical, attested initialism. --BDD (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to BVM as above. GiantSnowman 21:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Microbear[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#Microbear

F-Zero: GP Legend(Game)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 15:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

F-zerogplegend.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#F-zerogplegend.com

Expansion of the Arab empire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current and previous target do not seem to be good. And I have no idea for a good target. So, if anyone has an idea for a good target, feel free to say it. Veverve (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No one is going to search for this. And there is no single obvious target. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Street arab[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#Street arab

Wikipedia:CLIMATE[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Participants seem to agree that this is the most significant of the possible redirect targets. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Climate' should be a part of the larger 'weather' project and can be confusing to most users who want to find projects related to the current global climate, but not climate change. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 07:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as users could be looking for either project and I don't know any evidence that they are looking more for one project than the other Chidgk1 (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think the majority of users looking for climate would be fairly annoyed to end up at weather. They're fundamentally different concepts and keeping the two separate in people's minds is a major thing in science education. If I want to work on the weather project, I'll use WP:WEATHER, if I want the climate wikiproject, I'll use WP:CLIMATE. Seems logical enough to me. Licks-rocks (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Chidgk1. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | edits) 16:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate since there is a reasonable chance different people are seeking different concepts. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Licks-rocks. If we discount weather as a source of confusion, the only other potential items for a disambiguation page that I see are Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Climate task force, which doesn't appear to be very active; and Wikipedia:Climate change team, a defunct proposal. If there is any ambiguity, it can be handled via a hatnote. - Eureka Lott 15:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be the best relevant option, so let's keep the page. BhamBoi (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LicksRocks. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

A Snow Globe Christmas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#A Snow Globe Christmas

Nintendo DS & DSi Browser[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Nintendo DS & DSi Browser

Norman Weslin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to The Lambs of Christ. Salvio giuliano 08:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name of an individual not mentioned at an article should never redirect to it. Furthermore, while certainly an extremist, I can't tell from the few hits I'm getting on Google whether this person actually did anything that would be considered "terrorism". An anonymous username, not my real name 04:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He is not mentioned anywhere on enwiki. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I haven't looked into who he is, but if alive this is a WP:BLP issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, Weslin died in 2012 (ref). Legoktm (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that information. As I said at the time, I hadn't looked into it. But with recreation of the target page, I'm changing my position. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above with no prejudice on article creation if he's indeed notable. --Lenticel (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a redirect to The Lambs of Christ of which Norman Weslin is the founder, and which has mention of his name from its first edit itself. The Lambs of Christ was an article for 6 years before being BLARd to Christian terrorism, which again doesn't have a mention of the organization. Either restore The Lambs of Christ, and retarget Normal Weslin to it, or bundle The Lambs of Christ with this RfD. Jay 💬 07:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the redirect was made to a particular section that had existed for a number of years until 23:39, 27 January 2019 when a large portion (−75,919 bytes) of the article was deleted by Tryptofish (related to discussions here). Apparently it was felt that the article was list-like, but it doesn't appear that the content that was objected to was split; it might warrant a closer look to see whether restoring and splitting the content is worth doing. Regardless, the deleted section only briefly mentioned The Lambs of Christ, and did not mention Norman Weslin.
    Looking at most recent revision of The Lambs of Christ it reads like a work of propaganda, more concerned with portraying the organisation as peaceful and benevolent than providing a neutral, encylcopedic description. However, this is only true for the most recent revisions prior to the redirect. Restore, but only this revision. – Scyrme (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the place to decide whether to restore disputed mainspace content, so the nominated redirect is still a delete for me. The edit of mine that is referred to above is this: [6], but the reasons behind it go far beyond a matter of list-like concerns; see also Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism. This is an extremely complex and contentious matter of what to call, or not call, "Christian terrorism" in Wikipedia's voice. If there is a separate content decision to restore The Lambs of Christ as a standalone page, then Norman Weslin can be a redirect to that. Absent that, I'm OK with also deleting the The Lambs of Christ redirect along with the one nominated here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia to my knowledge. Ⲕրⲁիօրետ (tɒk) 20:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If The Lambs of Christ article were restored, there would be a mention there. – Scyrme (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Lambs of Christ. Based on Jay and Scyrme's suggestions, I've recreated the article from scratch. Legoktm (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I suggested restoring a particular older revision, I don't object to this new version. (And, of-course, I agree with retargeting Norman Weslin to it.) – Scyrme (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the recreation of The Lambs of Christ, I'm changing my opinion to retarget to there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Oiled (road)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Oiled (road)

Hitlerian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Hitlerian

Service as worship[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to. There is no mention at the target. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't get the purpose of this redirect as it seems unrelated to the title at hand. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: RHaworth had contested the PROD and BLARd it with the talk page comment And Benedict spoke well when he laid this rule down 1500 years ago.. Jay 💬 11:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the concept seems to be common to lots of different Christian groups, I don't see any reason to redirect the term to one of them where the article doesn't even mention it. Hut 8.5 18:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Warrington Gillette[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Warrington Gillette

Chromatiales[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably split the taxobox out and form a new page. This redirect is currently under-supported by target page content. Artoria2e5 🌉 11:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Artoria2e5: do you want this deleted? I did not get the split the taxobox out part. Were you suggesting to create a new future page of Chromatiales having the taxobox as content? Jay 💬 13:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The taxobox currently treats "Chromatiales" as a synonym for "Purple sulfur bacteria", listing all the families of that order. I think Artoria2e5 is contesting this, and suggesting that Chromatiales should have a separate article (or that the title should be vacated until one is written).
Looking online, I see sources that variously use "Chromatiales" as a synonym for "purple sulfur bacteria" or state that "purple sulfur bacteria" are within the order "Chromatiales" (implying not all species in Chromatiales are purple sulfur bacteria). A number of sources (including the NCBI Taxonomy Browser) indicate that "purple sulfur bacteria" covers only two families: Chromatiaceae, Ectothiorhodospiraceae. This implies that the other families within Chromatiales aren't purple sulfur bacteria.
It's plausible that sources that treat them as a synonyms are mistaken or are simply being imprecise. If this is the case, the taxobox should be amended (or retitled and moved to a separate article per nom if anyone is willing to write one) and the title should be made vacant to avoid misleading readers and leave space for an article (per WP:REDYES).
I lean towards delete, unless someone can demonstrate that they actually are synonyms and that sources using them as such aren't wrongly doing so. – Scyrme (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or just turn the redirect into a separate article). Not all members of Chromatiales are considered purple sulfur bacteria. Purple sulfur bacteria are anaerobic and phototrophic. Halothiobacillus is a member of the Chromatiales and is aerobic and chemolithoautotrophic. Thioalkalibacteraceae is also chemolithoautotrophic. Plantdrew (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_21&oldid=1145200001"