Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
XFD backlog
V Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
CfD 0 0 3 37 40
TfD 0 0 1 5 6
MfD 0 0 1 0 1
FfD 0 0 27 6 33
RfD 0 0 27 29 56
AfD 0 0 0 6 6

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 a redirect be deleted? 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

[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should a redirect be deleted?

[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

[edit]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), 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

[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

[edit]

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, 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. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

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

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

[edit]
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 and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
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

[edit]

Eastern (basketball)

[edit]

There are several other basketball organizations named "Eastern". Ones we have pages for include Eastern Basketball Alliance and Eastern Basketball Association, while google gives a number of other hits. The Hong Kong team doesn't seem to be the primary topic. The redirect is tagged as from a move I don't see it under this name anywhere in the history, but I may be missing something, since the redirect has gotten hundreds of views this month. If the page has substantially history under this name then happy to withdraw this. Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Eastern is a guest team in the 2024–25 PBA Commissioner's Cup and is the cause of the page (redirect?) views. Retarget and itemize as per the anon above. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2024–25 PBA Commissioner's Cup, Hong Kong Eastern is simply referred to as "Eastern"; I've named it as such but was reverted because in WP:OFFICIAL PBA lingo, the team from Hong Kong is simply referred to as "Eastern". Compare to the parallel 2024–25 East Asia Super League where they are referred to as "Hong Kong Eastern" and are referred to by that name on that article. I figured "Fine, let's do what they say". The links were originally targetted to Eastern Sports Club (basketball)", then was retargetted to "Eastern (basketball)" by Gayviewmahat on this edit. He also created this redirect, and has not commented here; that guy just edits and never engages in discussions. That's where the pageviews came from. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 12:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin C2

[edit]

No presence of the term in the article. Nothing seems to show up (in the article or from searches online) that classifies Choline as anything close to a "Vitamin C2". it does say that "..Choline is not formally classified as a vitamin despite being an essential nutrient with an amino acid–like structure and metabolism..", but otherwise there is virtually nothing going for this redirect, unless I'm mistaken. DM5Pedia (ctr) 22:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Vitamin C2 appears to be a registered trademark of the "Life Priority" company for the combination of calcium ascorbate and ascorbyl palmitate, which it calls "water soluble" and "fat soluble" vitamin C, respectively... which may or may not be BS as I don't see anyone else talking about it and they do mention they aren't FDA evaluated (to be fair, both are approved as food additives as safe at least). There is also a paper published in Nature that says Vitamin P is also known as Vitamin C2. These are the only hits I find for "Vitamin C2" on google. Searching for choline +"C2" specifically shows some papers that say choline has something to do with something called "the C2 domain" which doesn't appear to have anything to do with vitamins, but I genuinely don't really know what what it does mean. Fieari (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: The "C2" in choline research is to do with "complement" protein. It has nothing to do with any vitamin, so "Vitamin C2" seems as you say to be the purest of BS; or at best, a simple error of identification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Aesculin (aka Esculin). Several databases record Vitamin C2 as a synonym for esculin (e.g. NCBI search results, DrugBank). Note that Vitamin P refers to multiple molecules which are glycosylated versions of quercetin. Databases can always be wrong when it comes to these things, but I see no problem in WP reflecting these likely inconsequential minutia. Also, don't be fooled by the number of databases that make the synonym claim, most are just copying one source, just look at the description field. Synpath 21:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. No authoritative regulatory source (FDA, EFSA, Health Canada) uses vitamin C2 for choline (or anything else), and neither is vitamin P an accepted scientific term for polyphenols which are not "vitamins" and have unknown properties in vivo. As for "WP reflecting these likely inconsequential minutia", our job as editors should be to provide simple, verifiable content for readers of the encyclopedia - the KISS principle applies. Zefr (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12212 Table 2 lists C2 as being mentioned in 1948 (doi:10.1038/161557a0) as a synonym for Vitamin P. Perhaps Vitamin C2 should be a dab page; maybe chemistry needs a category tree like Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names jnestorius(talk) 02:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with a DAB. Fieari (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per jnestorius, including Esculine and Flavenoids (aka Vitamin P). A quick search of the literature on google scholar using the term "Vitamin C2" yields several papers listing it as a synonym for vitamin P (albeit mostly in the 1950s by 1 principle author) [[1]] [[2]] [[3]].
Additionally, I did find a tentative link to choline. This book lists vitamin C2 as a synonym for vitamin J on page 510, and vitamin J is an established synonym for choline (see Redirect). Definitely seems incorrect, I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 12:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition lovers II

[edit]

First time doing something like this, let me know if I've made a mistake. I believe this redirect should be deleted, especially to avoid confusion with the newly-created page for "Demolition Lovers". "Demolition Lovers II", from what I can tell, refers to the title of the album cover's artwork, but it is not referenced in the article (nor in reliable, secondary sources from a Google search). The redirect also seems to be rarely used, with Pageview Analysis showing only 121 uses over the past decade. In the case that this redirect ends up being kept, then it should at least be renamed to put it in title case. Thank you. Leafy46 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 12:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glamorgan women's cricket team

[edit]

Misleading target. Glamorgan women's team are going to compete in multiple different competitions, and so makes no sense to redirect to one of the competitions in which they will compete. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ+ production of family

[edit]

This is just very odd phrasing. I might understand having one redirect, but having multiple iterations of this phrasing feels off to me. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a natural search phrase, admittedly neither is the article title but I still don't see this redirect being of any use. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of these redirects, I have nothing against them being deleted. But I will say, if they do get deleted, LGBTQ+ Production of Family should probably get deleted as well, since I created these redirects based off the existence of this redirect, since I felt that someone searching it like this would search it with the terms I used for the redirects. If anyone disagrees with this, please let me know. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JeffSpaceman! I've added this one to the RFD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 11:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Invest 92L (2024)

[edit]

There are more than one invest called 92L in 2024 A1Cafel (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UKCF

[edit]

UKCF is now also the abbreviation for United Kingdom Commando Force, the former 3 Commando Brigade; as such, I propose that UKCF be made a disambiguation page, as I do not believe one or other could be said to be the primary topic. The other solution would be for the redirect hatnote to be placed on the UK Community Foundations page. Cheers in advance, RadiculousJ (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add hatnote. Google suggests that the charity is the WP:PTOPIC by a wide margin, so it should remain the target, but a hatnote would work well here. If it was more balanced by usage, or if more things used these four letters, I'd agree with a DAB, but this case is what hatnotes are for. Fieari (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus donkey

[edit]

The story of Jesus riding the donkey is the primary topic here, not this graffiti. Unsure if this should be deleted or redirected to Triumphal entry into Jerusalem#The donkey(s). Rusalkii (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. It was previously not redirected to anything. I added the redirect because I was looking for the graffiti but couldn't remember its name, so I put the two nouns in adposition as "Jesus-donkey".
If somebody wants to find the Triumphal entry I think they'd write "Jesus riding donkey" or something similar. Writing just the two nouns would strike me as strange coming from an English-speaker.
The one hesitance I have is that the page name might strike somebody as insensitive, but that kind of owes to the insensitive nature of the graffiti. I think that the two nouns most simply refer to the graffiti, while the nouns with the verb clearly refers to the Triumphal entry. Aspets (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first thing I thought of was the graffiti.★Trekker (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I may have seen the graffito before, but I don't remember it. I assumed this title referred to a donkey relating to Jesus—perhaps a character in a nativity play. I'm not convinced that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem is what people who type "Jesus donkey" are likely to be looking for, and the current target makes sense. My first impression is that any ambiguity could be solved with a hatnote at "Alexamenos graffito". A disambiguation page is also possible, but seems unlikely to be needed; I don't think that "Jesus donkey" is a very likely search term, though it's fine as a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Triumphal entry into Jerusalem#The donkey(s) as WP:PTOPIC, I agree with nom. I've never heard of the graffiti, but even if it does have some notoriety it's not going to compare with the huge portion of the world's population that is going to primarily associate these two words with palm sunday. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aspets and P Aculeius - it doesn't make sense that the two nouns together would be used for Triumphal entry into Jerusalem#The donkey(s), although a hatnote may be added. Jay 💬 22:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've gone ahead and made a hatnote, although if this discussion is closed in favour of retargeting, it can be removed, and a separate hatnote made at the section of Triumphal Entry. P Aculeius (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aspets thinks the hatnote should be removed because it might upset readers. I don't really think that's likely, but maybe some of the other participants in this discussion could give their opinions. If we retarget the redirect, then the hatnote I made would be unnecessary. If we keep it where it is, I think we need the hatnote. P Aculeius (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope it doesn't come across as an attempt to censor, I'm just skeptical of the need for the hatnote. The graffiti is a little blasphemous, so the natural names we may think of can also be. It just seems unnecessary to highlight those names outside of the search function, which I see as working in the background.
    I do think the hatnote is a good idea if some people really associate "Jesus donkey" with Palm Sunday. Just a question, @Fieari, but does the phrase refer to the event for you, or the words? I think the phrase more naturally refers to the graffiti. Also, @Rusalkii, do you interpret WP:REDIR to denote redirects as "topics"? I've understood it as if there are topics (primary topics etc.) with disambiguations and shortnames, and then there are "alternative names" or whatever which are often descriptive (along with misspellings and graphical variants). Aspets (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand the question. Personally I don't think the hatnote is necessary here, since this is a pretty obscure redirect (I overall prefer deletion, it's not particularly useful for navigation). Showing everyone on the page the hatnote makes a much bigger deal if it than it warrants. Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your contention is that a different topic should be the target of the redirect, then it makes sense to have a hatnote linking to that topic unless and until it's retargeted, because people searching for "Jesus donkey" might be looking for that instead. P Aculeius (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The association I have is both with the words and also with a slight modification of the phrase "Jesus's donkey", easily akin to a very minor typo or misspelling or mishearing... a fair few dialects of English I've heard don't really have a clear 's ending for words also ending in "s" when pronounced. Fieari (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, very good point. Aspets (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the whole - the graffito by some 2nd-century soldier frankly gets more attention than it deserves (really "Jesus donkey" oughtn't to suggest this first, but to some it does) & the redirect is adequate. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is ongoing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City Metro Line C

[edit]

Although it was proposed in the past, there is no Line C in the MCM system and it is unlikely to exist soon. (CC) Tbhotch 07:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency (Guatemala)

[edit]

Not mentioned at target page RaschenTechner (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry frosting

[edit]

The target has no content related to this specific type of frosting. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of triject aircrafts

[edit]

It's not just the fake plural "aircrafts" that makes this redirect silly. Enough people say "aircrafts" to make it probably worth keeping if that were its only silly feature. The real showstopper, though, is the confection "trijects" which presumably emerged into someone's typing fingers via "project" or "trajectory" or similar. The unlikelihood of this being repeated is what renders this redirect a literal waste of space. DBaK (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums number ones of 2025

[edit]

The target doesn't include lists of number one hits per year, let alone number one hits from 2025. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it expands to more than albums; extended plays and compilations. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 05:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MicMac Online

[edit]

Should be deleted, I think. There is a different online game MikMak [he] from Israel, only available in Hebrew but relevant enough to for this redirect to be confusing, as I could easily see the Israeli game having an English article someday. I created this redirect minutes ago, and realized this a bit late. Kaasterly (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.D.

[edit]

Should an initialism with periods really point to a different place than the same initialism without periods? SPD goes to the Social Democratic Party of Germany but S.P.D. goes to the dab page. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 03:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DIhydrogen monoxide

[edit]

No affinity for a double-capital letter at the beginning, search engine automatically corrects this. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the

[edit]

There are over 100 wikipedia articles that start with "Meet the", so I don't believe this is the primary topic, or that there IS a primary topic. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, let me~
you can meet the...
this is a roundabout way of saying "delete per nom" consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Byng Arts Mini School

[edit]

Article created solely to promote the topic, which is insignificant and non-notable in its own right. I changed it to a redirect, but there is no sourced coverage at the target, even before any of my edits (version before my first edit). Proposing deletion. Yue🍁 08:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Y

[edit]

Retarget to YMCA. Common shorthand name, and more notable than others at The Y (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the disambiguation page here; multiple things are called "The Y" and there's no evidence that people searching for the YMCA are getting there through a "The Y" redirect. The Y has 80 monthly pageviews (over half of which are from the last two days) and The Y's has 200 monthly pageviews, The Y (film) has 250 monthly pageviews as well. Even if the YMCA has more pageviews than both of them, I don't think anyone is struggling on navigating there by typing "y" "m" "c" "a", instead of an ambiguous "The Y" that has multiple options on the disambig page. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This RfD conflicts with a active move discussion at Talk:The Y (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 February 2025, which the nominator was a participant. IMO, this RfD should have been opened after the aforementioned move request had concluded. Steel1943 (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil women's national under-19 cricket team

[edit]

No information at the target about the team (or at Brazil women's national cricket team). Delete as misleading and to encourage creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National kho kho teams

[edit]

Simply listed as participants, without any further details about the teams provided. Delete to encourage article creation and because anybody searching for this title won't find the information they're looking for based on the current target. Note that there was also two other similar redirects deleted at RfD in the last 15 days. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S.L.C

[edit]

Possibly a typo of S.L.C., both don't appear to be English acronyms for the target title, almost 0 hits and nothing links to the redirect (only one link from the talk of a Nepali village development committee). Can be safely deleted. Bertaz (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia Sucks

[edit]

Surprisingly, this redirect has survived multiple RfDs, while the very similar Why Wikipedia Is Not So Great that I listed recently was a fully uncontroversial deletion (no keep votes cast). I'm curious to see if community consensus has changed here. — Anonymous 20:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely search term; redirects are not for Google-style searches. It might also be referring to the harassment site "Wikipedia Sucks!", which the current target does not mention. Ca talk to me! 01:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely to type in a question, nobody is expecting an answer in the form of a baked-in redirect. Search results can definitely do their thing and we don't have redirects of this type for any other circumstance. If there was a subtopic of "Why Wikipedia Sucks" that received attention and coverage and a mention at the target, things would be different, but "Why Wikipedia Sucks" is mentioned nowhere and is not a plausible search term on an encyclopedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes @Significa liberdade comment: isn't that an example of a "google search redirect"? Now that I know that google search redirects are, ill try to be more careful before making them, but it has "why" in the title doesn't that make it count? Would it be more appropriate if it didn't have "why" in the title? Anthony2106 (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My opinion has not changed since the last RfD on this. I find it a plausible search term, with an unambiguous target. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fieari, they could just as likely be looking for our essays Why Wikipedia is not so great or Improvement sucks. — Anonymous 02:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is a mainspace search, so mainspace content is strongly, STRONGLY preferred over namespaced content such as our essays. And we have information that matches what the search string is looking for... the Criticism of Wikipedia article does, in fact, have reasons why wikipedia sucks, colloquially speaking. Sometimes WP:XNRs are just barely okay, mainly for cases where it is clearly a situation of a prospective new wikipedian trying to learn how we work, and such a new wikipedian cannot be expected to understand yet what a namespace is. But here? This doesn't sound like a new wikipedian, it sounds like a user looking for encyclopedic content on the problems with wikipedia. We have that information. We can give it to them. Fieari (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlanta Thrashers roster

[edit]

The Atlanta Thrashers team no longer operates. There is no expectation that the team will be revived in the near future. Currently, no mainspace pages link or include this redirect/template. It can be safely deleted. Alaney2k (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1-2-2-50

[edit]

i ii ii l (no, that's not an uppercase i) and other such redirects have no mention, but can probably be considered plausible since that's just the comic's format translated into text, but this seems like a stretch consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 19:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a joke I've seen on Twitter and such - "1 2 2 50 (translated from Roman numerals)". It's on a level with "a door, a desk, a hallway, a bed": clever, but not worth making into a redirect. DS (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in spring, man built a pillar
in summer, another
throughout autumn, they held
but in winter, one fell consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 21:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyside Park

[edit]

The target of this redirect makes no mention of any Sunnyside Park, which appears to be a baseball stadium based on the categories added to the redirect. I feel that Sunnyside Amusement Park is a more logical target, which also includes a sub-section for Sunnyside Stadium, which is a baseball/softball park. This could also be made into a disambiguation page, since other plausible tagets are New_Paris, Indiana#Sunnyside_Park, Sunnyside Park, Alberta, and the Sunnyside North Beach also. Only some of the items are listed at the Sunnyside disambiguation page. Other suggestions also welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the nom is asking for suggestions…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A disambiguation page makes the most sense. Alaney2k (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah whoops oh jeez oh no i tripped all over my keyboard and fell on it and hit my head and broke my cheekbones and accidentally sent the edit made by my rapidly descending face, and it just so happened to look exactly like a draft for a dab, what are the odds?
as is, i found some other sunnyside parks, but left them out. those would be
  • sunnyside park in the list of neighborhoods in san francisco, as its only mention has a big ol' cn template plastered on it (and no context for what it is either)
  • sunnyside park in sunnyside, houston. has sauce behind it, but it's likely relatively minor
  • the entirety of sunnyside, toronto. which apparently has a beach and park area. thus, i don't assume any of the parks in it would be known as the "sunnyside park". hey that's the place that had the amusement park before it went boom
  • sunnyside park in sunnyside, queens. minor and without context
i really need to buckle my shoes a little tighter consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 20:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic rock

[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melodic rock (disambiguation). It is probably best that both these titles redirect to the same place, perhaps Rock music, although the term is not mentioned explifcitily on that page. The situation is complicated sloightly by Melodic Rock EP which correctly redirects along with Melodic Rock EP (Harem Scarem album) to to Harem Scarem. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging AfD contributors @RakdosWitch: @FMSky: @Binksternet:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think a redirect to arena rock makes the most sense. The opening source of that article states Crystal 2014, p. 220, "arena rock: 'also known as pomp rock, melodic rock, anthem rock, stadium rock, or AOR" --FMSky (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • These redirects both used to point to album oriented rock before being piped different places by different users, and arena rock is the analogous genre to that radio format, so I think that makes sense. Chubbles (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no perfect answer, because there is not a strong definition of melodic rock out in the literature. The cited David Crystal source (written by a non-musician) conflates a bunch of music styles as if Crystal was just typing rather than researching. Especially grating is Crystal including AOR in the definition. AOR was originally mainstream rock heard on FM stations in the late 1970s as DJs aired additional non-single album tracks. That's why I would apply WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for the Crystal cite, and lower its weight tremendously. Crystal is wrong in this because AOR was not more nor less melodic than other rock. (See Marc Davison's All Area Access from 1997.) AOR's stylistic colleague, Middle of the road (music) (MOR), was very much more melodic, but not strictly rock-oriented. At least arena rock is meant to be sung by the audience, making it more melodic by definition. I went with the general "rock" target because of Allan Moore and Remy Martin writing in Rock: The Primary Text on page 17. "Rock supports a vast range of labels: progressive rock... ballad rock, melodic rock, synthesiser rock..." The authors list 33 types of rock, then conclude, "the list is as long as the publicist's thesaurus." Looking at it from the other direction doesn't help: if you try to see what "melodic rock" has been equated with, sometimes the answer isn't even rock. Drummer Will Rigby once said that both punk rock and "My Sharona"–style new wave drove record labels away from anything remotely melodic or Beatles-esque in the late 1970s. He said that "melodic rock" was called "power pop" at the time, to escape the stigma associated with melodic rock. But Rigby is an outlier. Sociologist Andy Bennett writes in British Progressive Pop 1970-1980 that the "melodic" portion of melodic rock indicates that the pop element of vocal harmonies was included with the rock elements. Bennett's is only a passing mention; he does not investigate the topic. For the redirect, if I had to pick a second and third choice after rock music they would be arena rock or pop rock. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Binksternet: - What would you think about starting a set index article for melodic rock? There's no clear or universal definition, but clearly per your sources some have tried defining it, so each definition could get a brief cited description and a link to the article containing the closest content we have to that definition. Fieari (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea. Let me think about how to implement it. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 College Football Playoff National Championship

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Please note that a similar discussion was closed as delete. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 17:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – This redirect is not misleading, as it directs users to the College Football Playoff National Championship page, where general information about the event can be found. The 2026 game is already scheduled for January 19, 2026, so WP:TOOSOON does not apply. Previously, 2025 College Football Playoff National Championship was a redirect until the game happened, at which point it became a full article. The same will likely happen with the 2026 game, so deleting this redirect now would be inconsistent with past handling of similar events. Many other major future sporting events have redirects well in advance, and keeping this one helps users find relevant information more easily. Abhiramakella (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many other redirects of this type (also made by you) were deleted due to being WP:TOOSOON. Also, a reader looking for information about the 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship will see only that it will be hosted at a stadium also used by an NFL team and that it will be hosted at Hard Rock Stadium, which they would have to scroll down to Venues to even find. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 17:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dihidrogenmonixide

[edit]

missing space and two tpyos, come on!! consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 14:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Misspellings are common on Wikipedia. Abhiramakella (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogenmonoxid

[edit]

missing space and letter. i put faith in the average reader to not miss two spelling mistakes in the samesearc consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contra Run and Gun

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean keep - This is almost certainly a non-parenthetical unnecessary disambiguator. "Run and gun" is the genre of games that the Contra series belongs to, and may have even kicked off said genre. I lean towards keeping this as an unambiguous target, but I can see arguments for deletion as malformed. Still, WP:CHEAP probably applies, so lean keep it is. Fieari (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Konami filed for the trademark and this is the logical home as a search target. czar 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Upon research in this title further, seems this phrase refers to a game bundle called "Contra Run & Gun Bundle" (Steam link). Seems this bundle was also released on major consoles. Either way, seems like we may have a WP:RETURNTORED situation since this topic is not mentioned at the target, and seems to represent a valid subject, so it does not seem to be describing the genre in general. Adding a mention to the target article describing the subject of the redirect could relieve this problem, given the topic of this redirect probably fails WP:GNG. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy AI

[edit]

Galaxy AI also covers the Galaxy Tab S10 series and the recently-revealed Galaxy S25 series, so this redirect is outdated. Eyesnore talk💬 15:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to One_UI#One_UI_6 for now, as there is content there and below there about this topic. If someone wants to create a new article here that meets WP:GNG (I could easily believe there's enough sources out there to do this) there's no need to delete this redirect first. Standard policy is that you can just overwrite the redirect entirely with the new article. Fieari (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Benjamin Watkins IV

[edit]

Cannot find a reliable source showing this as his full name Red Director (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling together with "Samuel Benjamin Watkins IV".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found this from an article at Sports Illustrated. But it's fantasy related and may not be enough substance to justify it. It's a passing mention of the name, and since we can't find a second source to verify it, I'm not sure how much weight it should carry. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I think they are very highly unlikely search terms, especially with "IV". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This university paper gives a middle initial of "B.": https://www.tigernet.com/clemson-lifestyle/story/sammy-watkins-arrested-by-university-police-10587 -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Deep (TV series)

[edit]

Misleading. There is no evidence that Yakamoz S-245 was ever called Into the Deep. Paradoctor (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dungatar

[edit]

'Dungatar' appears to be a fictional town in which this film is set. It's a bit of a stretch for a redirect, but I would accept it. However, the film is based on the novel of the same name, making this an XY situation for a potentially unlikely redirect. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unlike the novel which has only one-word mentions with regards to the story, the current target has a lot more information about how the town was brought to life in the film. A reader at the film article will get to know the novel article from the lead. I would see this as a derivative, not an XY. Jay 💬 15:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Build that wall

[edit]

Previously pertinent section doesn't exist anymore. Redirect lemma as such not included now. Hildeoc (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, can you explain it to me? CheeseyHead (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to 2016 United States presidential election#Notable expressions, phrases, and statements. That is where Lock her up and I'm with her (slogan) currently already redirect to. Not sure if there's an established precedent for where slogans not notable enough to have their own article should redirect to but it seems to work here.
Also, whatever decision is arrived at here, it should also be applied to Build the wall too. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Anyone else's first thought to retarget to Bastion (video game)#Music? No? Just me? I' don't strongly oppose the proposed target, as it is a minor variation of a pretty major potentially WP:PTOPIC thing... but the Bastion soundtrack has an absolute banger of a track with exactly this title. I don't even like the game that much and yet I love the song... Fieari (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Archive

[edit]

redirects from mainspace to wikipedia space ―Howard🌽33 08:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear, i am nominating this redirect for deletion. ―Howard🌽33 12:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicano Mural History (brief)

[edit]

It's unclear what the disambiguator "(brief)" is meant to represent. In addition, the version of the title without the disambiguator, Chicano Mural History, does not exist and never has existed. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PB

[edit]

Either keep with redirect hatnote to Wikipedia:Page blanking or retarget to Wikipedia:Page blanking and add redirect hatnote to previous target there. I expected this shortcut to mean "page blanking" but then became skeptical of it when i realized that it brought me to Wikipedia:Partial blocks contrary to my expectation of that it will take me to Wikipedia:Page blanking. 67.209.130.146 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the redirect is being used on over 750 pages, it would be very disruptive to alter the meaning of the link by changing its target, and would likely break future links because people would be unaware the target changed. Proposing changing WP:XYZ shortcuts needs really strong reasoning as it has the potential to cause a lot of confusion. Feel free to add a hatnote though, you don't need RFD for that. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the current is related to a policy, and the suggested change is a guideline; the current has more utility. — xaosflux Talk 10:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bugghost. Some of his arguments would be a good reason to revert or to disambiguate if this had a long history as a redirect to Page blanking, but since it was created as a redirect to Partial blocks and has never had another target (except for four minutes going to Peanut butter, thanks to a vandal), there aren't any old links that correctly used this as a shortcut for Page blanking when they were created. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory in Islam

[edit]

I was about to retarget this without discussion, but I see there's been dispute in the past, so I'll do the proper thing and bring it to RfD. The creator of this redirect retargeted it twice, before another user retargeted it for a third time. Its second target, Purgatory#Islam, seems the most logical, as purgatory is primarily understood to be a Christian concept, and similar ideas in other faiths are analogous at best. — Anonymous 03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicano Mural Histoy

[edit]

Not as bad as "Mural Histoy" but still a fairly improbable typo. If kept, it should at least be retargeted to Chicano murals#History. — Anonymous 02:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page has no valuable history. WP:MOVEREDIRECT indicates that redirects should not generally be moved, as it obfuscates and muddies up the history. There was not a redirect at that red link which existed since 2007, which would be the creation date's implication. Such a link would have existed only since 2025, so the history should reflect that. Creating pages is inconsequentially easy; deleting is too. But moving adds confusion for little purpose. Utopes (talk / cont) 10:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mural Histoy

[edit]

Ummm... do I really need to explain this one? There's another slightly less egregious one that I'll list separately because it could more plausibly be useful. — Anonymous 02:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwean dollar (2019–present)

[edit]

The currency is no longer in use and has been removed from circulation in 2024, so that they are not “2019-present” anymore. 132.234.228.184 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed the respective talk page redirects from this nomination: They will be deleted per {{Db-talk}} and/or {{Db-subpage}} if these redirects are deleted, and have no relevance to this discussion otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Females Uncut

[edit]

Radio show to radio station redirect, for a show not named in the radio station's article to provide any context for why it redirects there. To be fair, there was content about the show in the station article in 2014 when this was first redirected, but it's long since been removed for lacking any sourcing to establish its significance, so reverting it back into the article wouldn't be the solution. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existential threat

[edit]

Nominating this title for discussion here to determine a stronger consensus on whether or not this is the correct location. In my eyes, a risk of global catastrophe can be considered an "existential threat", and this is a likely search term, so as one option this is acceptable. However, there may be other titles that this can refer to, such as other "existences" beyond just human existence. Therefore, disambiguating may be an option. If there is a lack of other possibilities I believe this redirect suffices thanks to the hatnotes which clear the air, but perhaps there is a more preferable outcome that can clear any ambiguity? Utopes (talk / cont) 00:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 29 which indicated a desire for possible disambiguation. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I searched "existential threat" to see what the term is primarily used to describe, and, quite unexpectedly, I found enough reliable sources that appear to be discussing the phrase itself to make me wonder if there is an actual article that could exist under this title. — Anonymous 03:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but I fully support anonymous's efforts above to write a new article at this location. Until such time, I don't particularly see a better target than the current target, and I certainly don't think the current target provokes WP:ASTONISHment of any sort. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An existential threat is something that threatens the existence of something; it's applicable to anything, and not just on a global scale. If someone can write an article, great, but unless that happens, this page should be deleted because it implies that "existential threat" is only something on a global scale. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

83rd Golden Globe Awards

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. WP:RETURNTORED applies. CycloneYoris talk! 00:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kekius Maximus

[edit]

Meme coin. Musk changed his display handle to this at some point. Neither incident mentioned in target and I can't find evidence of it being used for him independently as opposed to "Musk changes twitter handle and memecoin prices soar!" type headlines. Rusalkii (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom, sources connected the redirect text to the target. It was a stupid fodder story but if reliable sources publish it prominently then a redirect is justifiable. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources connecting it doesn't make the person who searches for this and then ends up on the Musk page without context any less confused. Rusalkii (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not mentioned at target nor in any of the sub-articles describing Elon Musk's activities. A passing mention of a passing fad does not justify keeping this. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bugghost. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not worth keeping, it's simply a "joke" which is not notable enough to warrant a redirect. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TLU1

[edit]

Unhelpful redirect as TLU is not a commonly used abbreviation for The Last of Us -- ZooBlazer 23:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qingyun Wang

[edit]

Multiple people of equal or grater importance than this figure skater (王青雲 [ja]). There was the 19th century Qing Dynasty official (王慶雲 [zh]), who was Viceroy of Sichuan and Viceroy of Liangguang, a governor of two different provinces of China; There was a 5th century rebel leader (王慶雲 [vi]) against Emperor Xiaozhuang of Northern Wei. Clearly historically, the figure skater doesn't really hold a candle. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or DAB?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 20:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P:

[edit]

Probably not useful as an open-ended redirect when no article title is given for it. There are mainspace articles such as P:Machinery and P:ano that could have very well been sought, but instead these two characters (which would otherwise indicate portalspace if a portal's name was given to them), take readers to a portal of its own choosing. People looking for portals using the P: pseudo-namespace, can do so by typing in "P:", followed by the name of the portal they were after. I'm not convinced an "empty"-titled redirect is going to be of much use here. Targeting P seems more useful, if it targets anything. This one doesn't even point to portal space. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't follow your reasoning. It's not for users looking for a specific portal, and it doesn't take users to a portal of its own choosing. It's a shortcut to portal space, and while it doesn't technically go to a portal space page, it goes to the contents for portal pages. Whether that's the best use for P: (as opposed to going to P (disambiguation)), I don't know, but it does make sense as a shortcut. Mclay1 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A shortcut to portalspace is good. I'm just not convinced that people who type in one singular alphabet character and a punctuation is looking for information on portals. Because all articles have a title, there is nothing specified after the "P:" so there is never any assurance that a portal is being sought after. And PNRs are not widely known about to our general reader-base, and especially so as this PNR is just the letter "P", so I don't think there's an automatic assumption here that adding a punctuation to this letter "P" would take someone to Wikipedia:Contents/Portals. We try to keep a barrier up to prevent readers from falling into the backrooms while navigating the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Contents/Portals already has P:CP and P:PORT. P:P doesn't exist but perhaps it should in place of this titleless pseudo-namespace redirect for the simplest trapdoor people can fall into without catching innocent reading passerbys who were on their way to the P:ano content article but hit enter too early after the colon. Very plausible to type this in while looking for a mainspace title, which means that the search result should stay in mainspace and these two characters as a XNR is impeding that, imo. I'd suggest targeting P (disambiguation) where the portal page can very well be hatnoted. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other similar RfDs have ended in deletion. If this is going to be a keep contra all those, I'd like to see some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Law of fives

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned at the target. A previous RfD indicated that a section "should be restored and that this should be talked about at the article", but the section was entirely unsourced and if it were to be brought back, it would be deleted again. In absence of anything else, there also happens to be Law of Five which is a disambiguation page that points to Wuxing (Chinese philosophy), but there's really little need for a disambiguation page if only Wuxing covers the concept of "five", which is wholly unmentioned at Discordianism besides a five-fingered hand. I propose deletion as nothing is ever referred to as "the law of fives" at the Wuxing article, no mention of "law" there. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dormammu, I've come to bargain

[edit]

No mention of "I've come to bargain", much less "Dormammu, I've come to bargain". Searching for a quote from a movie has a 0% chance of taking you to the movie in question. People who search for this particular quote instead of searching for Dr. Strange, are going to be intending to receive some specific piece of information related to the quote that they searched for. With no mention to anchor this redirect down, it becomes unhelpful and misleading, as the existence of this redirect implies that we have material directly related to this search term, when we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a fairly iconic line, and it is probably possible to find sources supporting mention of the line to add it to the article. BD2412 T 21:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I should have elaborated on my delete !vote here, as well. As much as I am a fan of the MCU and Doctor Strange in particular, I do not think this quote is a necessary inclusion for this encyclopedia as a whole. There is currently no mention of this quote from analysis sources or reception to it since the movie released in 2016. Because no mention has been included in the eight-to-nine years since that film's release, it may be telling that it is not important to this encyclopedia. There have been several quote-related redirects being created lately that veer on WP:FANCRUFT. This encyclopedia is not a fan wiki, and I think any mention of this quote without sufficient evidence of notability would be giving it WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. We do not need a redirect pointing to each related project or character for a quote deemed iconic by the fanbase of a franchise, and we do not need to host such redirects. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not all movie quotes are created equally. In my experience, this particular quote is entering the culture/English language as an idiom with the specific meaning of requesting something over and over and over again, with the hopes of winning via exhaustion of the other person. I've seen it with regards to scambaiting, and with people requesting refunds from retail stores. I've seen it referring to children begging their parents for something. When a movie quote starts to be used extensively to mean something non-obvious, Darmok style, people are more likely to search for what it means. In this, case, the redirect makes it clear what the source of the quote is by the existence of the redirect, and close reading of the plot section will provide information to the searcher as to what the phrase is referring to. I believe that's enough to justify keeping the redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support soft redirection to wikiquote over the status quo. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thee Movie011

[edit]

Started out as WP:CFORK of Thalli Manasu. As a redirect, it is misleading, as Thee Movie011 is not an alternative name of Thalli Manasu.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalli Manasu. Paradoctor (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super monkey ball game cabinet

[edit]

Nonsensical redirect produced from a vandalism-only article; has absolutely no value to be kept from the reasons in WP:RFD#KEEP. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Guillard

[edit]

Ashley Guillard falsely accused Rebecca Scofield of being involved in the crime which is the target of this redirect, and Scofield won a defamation suit over that accusation. The mention of Guillard had been removed from the target article as WP:UNDUE weight. Rebecca Scofield was deleted today at its RfD, this should be too. Jay 💬 09:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National News

[edit]

There are more news programs (even in Canada) called “national news”, this probably needs to be converted into a disambiguation page of some kind at the very least. It certainly shouldn’t be redirected to CBC. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 14:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment: again even in Canada, “national news” could be referring to CBC The National, or to CTV National News, not to mention programs outside of Canada. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 14:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the related redirect The National News to the nomination. Both should point to the same place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Patar knight, no primary topic. मल्ल (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate. I oppose targeting to The National at all since that disambiguation page is not intended to include subjects referred to specifically as "National News". Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my stance, I'm referring specifically to the "News" word in these redirects. The disambiguation page The National Is a page that describes topics named "The National", not "[The] National News". There could very well be topics named "National News" that have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of "news media", so pigeonholing readers to make them assume that all such topic named "[The] National News" have to do with "news media" doesn't make sense and could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. The term is too generic, and too widely used by a lot more than just one news organization each, especially since the presence or absence of the word "the" isn't even a distinction between these two topics themselves since they both have "the" in front of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this phrase could as easily refer to State media. BD2412 T 20:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A: AOU

[edit]

A very vague and unhelpful redirect to the article -- ZooBlazer 08:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason most search results for this exact string without the space relate to Lego Marvel's Avengers, in reference to the versions of characters from this film. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some fandom wikis use it as shorthand for the film. A google search also terms up multiple uses on Reddit. Good enough for to keep unless there's other uses. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are an assortment of random letters to most readers, making this an unhelpful redirect. Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - For those users that this would be a random string of letters for, they will never see this redirect. Redirects are not typically user facing. For those that do use it, this is the correct target. Google does show significant fairly unambiguous use for this... yeah, there's some Lego Avengers bleedover, but even there it is still referring to this target. Strange how this is shown to be a fairly common abbreviation, while A:IW isn't. Anyway, what makes this a "weak" keep for me is the space after the colon. I don't see that in my searches. People typically seem to be typing "A:AOU", not "A: AOU". Fieari (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of the Cook Islands

[edit]

Redirect from a non-notable entity to a town. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 07:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 14:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noinclude

[edit]

This redirected to inclusion before being unilaterally retargeted as a cross-namespace redirect. While I agree that its meaning is quite unambiguous on enwiki, the creation of cross-namespace redirects is generally deprecated. I personally don't think that this rather obscure wikijargon warrants one. — Anonymous 05:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 14:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this goes against the policy on cross-namespace redirects, maybe someone more experienced can elaborate on that. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 14:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now I do understand that this is a redirect that is 17 years old; but it looks like it was retargeted about two years ago to its current target. Still though, the policy does generally frown upon cross-namespace redirects. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 14:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KWHY-TV

[edit]

A series of call sign moves has left us with the sort of pickle that only an RfD can properly address.

In January, the original KWHY-TV (channel 22), which had held that call sign since 1966, changed to KSCN-TV. Then, another station in the same area, KBEH (channel 63), became KWHY (note no suffix). The page moves have left KWHY-TV redirecting to KSCN-TV but KWHY as another article title. It does have a hatnote. In preparation for this move, there are no direct links in article space.

That said, I'm unsure if repointing KWHY-TV to KWHY is appropriate. Nearly all printed references to KWHY-TV will want KSCN-TV, but there's also now another KWHY that is a TV station, and that has to be considered as many news media mentions of TV stations are very imprecise with suffixes. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This sounds like a job for hatnotes and article content explanations. As you say, anyone finding a reference to exactly "KWHY-TV" is going to want "KSCN-TV". Now, a "KWHY (Television station)" disambiguator might need to be a DAB. But the exact title match should work like an exact title match. Fieari (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

31 April & 31 September

[edit]

There are no 31st day in April and September. They are also not suitable to redirect to other pages per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#April 31 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#September 31. 125.253.56.0 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:!

[edit]

Doesn't seem like a very plausible thing, being just an exclamation mark after the colon. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 22#Wikipedia:¬ → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia:~ has since been retargeted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 5#WP:~ (which also has comments on the ‘not’ meaning), but Wikipedia:¬ still redirects to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and should probably be treated the same way as the redirect nominated here. Brianjd (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no ‘subscribe’ command for me to subscribe to this discussion? Brianjd (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of those computer science / logical terms, as per Negation#Notation. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this was in main (article) space, we would ask whether the redirect term is mentioned at the target. In this case, it is mentioned in both {{Redirect2}} and {{Policy}}, but with no explanation. And WP:¬ is not mentioned at all. Is that part of the problem? Brianjd (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a link to Wikipedia:Glossary, which reminded me of the term ‘!vote’, which no one seems to have a problem with. It’s amazing how powerful context is. Brianjd (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An exclamation point equaling "not" is not only well known computer science lingo, it's also well established wikipedia jargon, as seen in the well used term "!vote". Plus, backend redirects need be even less stringent than the already relatively relaxed redirect rules for mainspace (relaxed as in, redirects don't need to abide by NPOV, don't need to be spelled correctly, don't necessarily need reliable sourcing, etc). If someone gets some use and enjoyment out of it, let them. Fieari (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glass-ceiling feminism and others

[edit]

These terms are not mentioned in the article. From looking at my search results, this term was first coined by Angela Davis, and there is an interesting quote at Wikiquote. Either delete them (unless a mention of the term is added to some Davis-related article) or soft redirect to Wikiquote. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immune complex deposition

[edit]

Immune complex deposition is a feature of many autoimmune conditions. I would suggest DAB or retarget to Immune complex. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah it's a feature of many autoimmune conditions - and all of them are at least partially Type III hypersensitivities, are they not? Per statpearls: The principle feature that separates type III reactions from other hypersensitivity reactions is that in type III reactions, the antigen-antibody complexes are pre-formed in the circulation before their deposition in tissues. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, the immune complex deposition is why they are partially or completely Type III. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Just-a-can-of-beans! This isn't in my area of expertise, so I'm not going to comment further. However, I have posted about this redirect at WP:MED. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While ICD is often seen in Type 3 hypersensitivity, currently we have more information on the topic in the page Immune complex. Unless Type III hypersensitivity is expanded to include more information about ICD, currently Immune complex seems like a more appropriate target since it gives more information abbout ICD. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 23:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe we should turn it into a separate article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From a student/learning perspective, this is what I was hoping to find, and I was simply surprised to see no page or redirect when I searched it. I do like the idea of a separate page for it, if others feel it is distinct enough to warrant one. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to make the article. Heres some sources I found to start you out: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to take up the challenge. Thank you for hunting down some sources, will save me a lot of time :) Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is always the best case scenario and I hope to see it as it's own article one day. By my limited reseach it does seem to meet WP:GNG. Hopefully it can be turned into an article. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alright, we think this could be a standalone, but since there's no article here yet, do we retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (TV channel in Asia)

[edit]

No opinion on this, just listing it for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a second on Tavix's solution who actually thinks these should be kept? Otherwise, delete seems like the way to go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Târnavele Blaj

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of cameos of the Mario series

[edit]

No such list or topic in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom or retarget to a specific heading if applicable. Also, if only 2 or 3 exists, won't 2 act as 3 and vice versa? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and as... kind of vague, if i'm being honest. on top of there not being a list, what would this mean for donkey kong, for example? consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 21, 2004

[edit]

No mention of May 21 at the target. Can't easily find anything to restore in the page history either. Departure– (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snape kills dumbledore

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Brasileiros

[edit]

This word means "Brazilians" in Portuguese, so the current target is very surprising. I suggest retargeting to Brazilians. Duckmather (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the term used in the BJJ community, which is an abbreviation. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sour apple

[edit]

Ambiguous descriptive phrase not even mentioned at target. Numerous sour apple cultivars exist.[13] Paradoctor (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous, agreed, but I think you mean List of sour apple cultivars (cultivars as in cultivated plant varieties), not cultivators (people or companies who grow plants). Carguychris (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving my knowledge of horticultural terms. — Anonymous 17:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; "sour apple" is not just a fruit, it's a flavoring for a wide variety of candies and liqueurs, most of which have no documented connection to the Granny Smith apple, although the color green is commonly used for marketing and labels often display green apples. The problem is finding documentation in WP:RELIABLE sources; this story suggests no actual connection to the Granny Smith, and it also documents previous names and themes used to market the flavoring. I favor WP:REDYES. Carguychris (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carguychris. I think the primary usage of "sour apple" is an artificial flavor, with particularly sour apple cultivars being secondary to the artificial flavor. We have an article for blue raspberry flavor. There could be an article for sour apple flavor, or a disambiguation page if their is an article for the flavor and a list of sour cultivars. But absent an article or list, delete this redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a Sour Apple redirect that should be added to this nomination. Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main page/sandbox

[edit]

Unneeded cross-namespace redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the page main page is in mainspace, I think it is natural to append /sandbox directly. It does not appear in search results so there is no clutter for readers. Ca talk to me! 15:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]