Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 22, 2023.

Quintinense[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) CycloneYoris talk! 23:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not specific to Quintino Bocaiuva, could refer to Quintin in France. There is a football club called Quintinense, but it is not mentioned in the article or shown to be notable. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:19, 22 May 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).

Louis Fuller[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) CycloneYoris talk! 20:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This name does not appear anywhere in Fulci's article, and is extremely unlikely to be a search term to find him. Dug around and found that it was a one-off alias for the original U.S. theatrical release of the 1981 film The Beyond, but the name hasn't been used since. Sock (tock talk) 15:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've added a mention to the article as an alternative name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Presidentman. I wonder though if mention is worth adding to the lede, or at least to the infobox (under the "other_names" parameter)? A7V2 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Based on changes made by Presidentman. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 24 May 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).

World War II/Infobox[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#World War II/Infobox

Wikipedia:XMASTREE[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) J947 † edits 08:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to be implausible because it redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Do not use too many icons and it has nothing to do with Christmas Tree. Vitaium (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this goes with edits SMC made to the page at the same time. See this revision. They got reverted but I want to think SMC had some idea for the shortcut at the time. – The Grid (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to do a courtesy ping for SMcCandlish – The Grid (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't need to be plausible as something people search for. WP:CHEAP and it's meant to be a shorthand to refer to a segment of the manual of style, similar to things like MOS:TITLECAPS, during discussions. Referring to excessive decoration as like a Christmas tree is somewhat common. (Will duplicate this for other similar nomination.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused for a long time (replaced with MOS:XMASTREE), and the text there no longer pertains to the shortcut (even the MOS:XMASTREE one should probably stop being "advertised" at the page). There may be some other page (an essay, or whatever) to which WP:XMASTREE would be a more appropriate shortcut.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the wikipedia namespace equivalent to the manual of style shortcut discussed below. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In fact, I had created this one a couple of months before SMcCandlish added a counterpart with "MOS:" prefix. It's intended to replace an earlier WP:TOOMANY (and MOS:TOOMANY) which is indeed too vague by itself and can pertain to almost anything. While the text of MoS never mentioned Christmas trees directly, I guess the metaphor is pretty obvious and the shortcut is much more mnemonical. Deletion will just orphan a lot of existing edit summaries (that are not shown as links in statistics, but do exist). — Mike Novikoff 10:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unusual redirect and implausible, see above. --112.204.206.165 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 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).

MOS:XMASTREE[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) J947 † edits 08:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to be implausible because it redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Do not use too many icons and it has nothing to do with Christmas Tree. Vitaium (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Doesn't need to be plausible. It's used some and it's meant to be a shorthand to refer to a segment of the manual of style, similar to things like MOS:TITLECAPS, during discussions. Referring to excessive decoration as like a Christmas tree is somewhat common. (Will duplicate this for other similar nomination.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since it's in use and is "advertised" at the MoS page in question. There is no longer text there using Christmas trees as an example, so that short cut is now a no sequitur and should probably be "retired", but that's a matter for discussion at WT:MOSICONS (e.g., it might be that the old text should instead be restored).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is used in a metaphorical sense - it means adding decorations/ornaments to text like you would decorate a Christmas tree. This has some incoming links and is advertised as a shortcut to that section. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same as WP:XMASTREE. — Mike Novikoff 10:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It has its uses. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same as per nomination. --112.204.206.165 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 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).

Ukudar Spor Kulubu[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Totally misspelledredirect title. CeeGee 10:55, 22 May 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).

French birthday[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 💬 07:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLAR'd article about birthdays in France, though the former contents definitely wouldn't have survived a PROD and haven't been merged. The target page contains no related information whatsoever, likely causing confusion to a reader. There doesn't seem to be any better target on Wikipedia. Randi Moth TalkContribs 21:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 22 May 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).

Elijah Green[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 💬 15:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect should be deleted to encourage participation on Draft:Elijah Green Joeykai (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect until such time as the draft is ready for mainspace, then move the draft to occupy the title currently in use as the redirect. There is no reason to deny today's reader the small amount of information already in the encyclopedia about this person just because a fuller article is being written. PamD 22:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, convert to a dab page: somewhere along the complicated edit history of what is currently the draft we have lost the link from "Elijah Green" to Pumpsie Green (1933-2019), full name Elijah Jerry "Pumpsie" Green, who ought to have a redirect from his first+last names, and as this is ambiguous with the man of the same name (born 2003), we need a dab page. PamD 22:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've drafted the dab page below the redirect. PamD 22:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect is valid. I can help with the draft and merge it into Washington Nationals minor league players, retarget the redirect, and we're all good. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, if it's deserving of it's own page, the link to Pumpsie Green should be a hatnote on Elijah Green (no disambiguation page necessary). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per PamD's suggestion for now. Obviously, once the article is ready for the mainspace, it should be moved there. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should also deal with Elijah Green (outfielder), which currently redirects to infielder Pumpsie Green but should probably lead directly to the 2003 player when promoted from draft. Certes (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, for now. Retargetted to his dad, having added the "outfielder" description which is in the source but wasn't in text. PamD 15:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Green as part of the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have moved Draft:Elijah Green to Draft:Elijah Green (baseball outfielder), but now I see that is still ambiguous with another outfielder, and will leave it for this discussion to decide what to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Elijah Green (baseball, born 2003), which currently redirects to the father and has incoming links, is one possible title. Certes (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the draft is promoted, then replace by the dab (draft already prepared below #REDIRECT). Is there another outfielder we should list on that dab? Certes (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or disambig?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig regardless of fate of draft IMO. Even if the present-day Elijah Green doesn't get his own page, he's clearly who a lot of people are going to be expecting to find information on, so we should have a dab that will point them to whatever article has that information. -- Visviva (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig is valid as-is. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 2 June 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).

North Star Network[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. Deletion rationale mooted by the addition of referenced mention at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 00:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, could now refer to a number of organizations. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camejo founded the North Star Network after expulsion from the SWP, alluded to with the book name "North Star: A Memoir". Why not leave for now, and recreate as a disambig if necessary? SocDoneLeft (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SocDoneLeft, or add the information about him creating the network to the article. Then that can be primary topic. If a disambiguation page is created then each entry there would require a mention per MOS:DABMENTION AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a mention at the target. Jay 💬 08:13, 30 May 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).

Amongst[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 soft retarget to Wikt:amongst. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely different article, nothing is said about amongst except that "Some publications on both sides of the Atlantic disapprove of whilst in their style guides (along with "amidst" and "amongst"). Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft retarget to Wiktionary, seems to be a plausible enough search term. Randi Moth TalkContribs 21:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, change target to Whilst#Usage. It redirects to whilst because that article deals with style guide recommendations in the UK and the US regarding usage of "whilst", "amidst", and "amongst". Redirecting to Wiktionary is kind of pointless, because most people who search for the term on Wikipedia likely already know what it means, and want to learn more about it and its relatives. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, noting the changed section header (or unrefine) per Anachronist. As it stands, the target is quite helpful in my opinion. Retarget amidst here, whilst we're at it. J947 † edits 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft retarget to Wiktionary, which is set up to provide exactly the kind of usage and etymology information that our hypothetical user is likely to be searching for (in addition to the definitions/translations that a user might also be hoping to find). Even if all of this redirect's assumptions about user intent are correct, dropping the user into an article about a completely different word is a pretty astonishing and suboptimal outcome. (But if Epenthesis had a English usage section, it would make for a much less astonishing and probably helpful target.) -- Visviva (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to Wikitionary. It's much more likely what the vast majority of users would be looking for. (I am open to arguments to the contrary, and I see @Anachronist:'s argument above, but it seems to me it's more likely for someone to not be familiar with the term so they put it into wikipedia's search to figure out what it means... I feel like people looking for a usage guide are more likely to search google, not wikipedia) Fieari (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget -per Visiva. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 2 June 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).

UN inaction on genocide and human rights[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 Criticism of the United Nations#Inability to prevent conflicts. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or retarget to a section in Criticism of the United Nations. I'm leaning towards the latter. I know I can just be bold and do it myself, but I don't know which section to target this redirect to.Lazesusdasiru (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I moved this discussion to the top of the page, as new discussions are placed there rather than at the bottom. I hope that helps, and you'll take note of it in future discussions. Regards, SONIC678 05:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Criticism_of_the_United_Nations#Inability_to_prevent_conflicts. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:55, 27 May 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).

Lower front hole[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. The redirect may be recreated if sources are found. Jay 💬 08:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said back in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26 § Front hole that I'd RfD this if no sources emerged showing use, and none did, so, a few months of forgetting to do that later, here we are. Delete if sources still can't be found, else retarget to Transgender sexuality#Transgender men 2 to match Front hole. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Tamzin. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or retarget if sources found, per Tamzin). This looks like someone's private attempt at a joke, not a useful search term. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 23 May 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).

Zane Wederell[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 💬 08:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or any other article. My Google searches point to a completely non-notable person, who apparently doesn't have any connection to the target topic. This is basically a spam redirect. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:41, 22 May 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).

MasterChef: Back to Win[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 2#MasterChef: Back to Win

Mertens[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 Procedural close. The suggestions are for a Move Review of the recently concluded Requested Move discussion, or for the closer MaterialWorks to re-open the Move discussion. Jay 💬 09:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mertens (surname) There are dozens of articles where the subject has the surname Mertens per Mertens (surname). This should redirect back to that disambiguation article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Changed vote (see below). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've also found that there was an RfC that was closed less than one month ago with a consensus to redirect Mertens to Mertens (surname), and that after the RfC was closed, @ErceÇamurOfficial went ahead and unilaterally changed it to the current redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: That redirect was created my me after a page move (that resulted from this RM). I agree that it should redirect to Mertens (surname). that's basic post-move cleanup which I forgot to do (oops!). Turns out I targeted it correctly, but another editor retargeted it without consensus. – MaterialWorks 01:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC) See my reply below. – MaterialWorks 21:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should've done a little more research before bringing an RfD and just reverted per the RfC. I've put in an ANI regarding this user. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts and MaterialWorks: You're not listening here. A retarget to Mertens (surname) is impossible, for it would be misplaced. It makes no sense to have the base name, Mertens, redirect to the disambiguated name, Mertens (surname). J947 † edits 21:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of that essay before !voting here. Keeping it seems more appropriate now.
    PS: Not sure where the "You're not listening" is coming from. I have no horse in this race, I just thought I should comment here as the closer and let the others decide.– MaterialWorks 21:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry – I was just exasperated that my comment didn't do the trick the first time, and somewhat surprised a page mover didn't look to know what I thought was a pretty standard convention. J947 † edits 22:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. X cannot target X (surname); if you think that should be the case, then X should be the name of the set index. Either Mertens (surname) should be named Mertens, or Mertens should target Dries Mertens. I suggest the RM be reopened and relisted, because any consensus (I don't quite see one) is nebulous and likely to change. J947 † edits 05:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By my reading, the consensus at the recent requested move discussion is that Dries Mertens is the primary topic, hence why the page which was at Mertens was moved to Mertens (surname) (in fairness a weak consensus as J947 points out). Not sure what some of the above are getting at with this. If you disagree with the result of the previous RM then start a new one. A7V2 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Retarget as per the close of RFC and the closers comment here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Mertens (surname) to Mertens: Per WP:MISPLACED (h/t @J947), I'm changing my vote.
    As an aside, perhaps this RfD should be procedurally closed so that the RM can be reopened. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given the recentness of the move discussion, I think it would be inappropriate to move Mertens (surname) to Mertens without a new RM discussion. But I certainly have no issue with closing this discussion early to allow that to happen. A7V2 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, I've struck my vote. Although the current state is the only possible outcome by policy, it's also not what the consensus nwas for at the RM (and yes I've read the votes). Having a new RM discussion would clarify exactly what should be done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is correctly targeted given the outcome of the recent RM. If there is doubt whether or not consensus at that RM was correctly determined, then the correct venue for that is move review, not RfD or a second RM. A second RM only makes sense if there is reason to believe that consensus has changed due to new information or changing circumstances (unlikely) or to refine consensus when a closer has invoked WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, which is not the case here. Retargeting to Mertens (surname) is incorrect per WP:MISPLACED as others above have noted. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps better, see if MaterialWorks would consider reopening the RM, and then this RfD can be closed as moot. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 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).

Nikaj-Mërtur[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. wbm1058 (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. Nikaj or Mërtur? or Nikaj-Mërtur region? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Nikaj-Mërtur region which is a plausible target and solves the XY issue. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguate per voorts. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if there is a way to have a double redirect of sorts? When people talk about Nikaj-Mërturi they are talking about the two tribal units of Nikaj and Mërturi that are commonly grouped together; I recently created the pages for both to separate them. If there is no way to have a double redirect then I will probably have to try and find all articles that link to Nikaj-Mërturi and then separate it as Nikaj-Mërturi (if that makes sense). I do not think we should link it to the Nikaj-Mërturi National park, as in most contexts it refers to the tribes themselves. Thanks guys. Botushali (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to consider a set index or a disambiguation. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:45, 22 May 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).

Honeyland (films)[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 💬 08:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was left over from a March 2020 move by the now blocked user Lugnuts; while there are multiple films with that title (like the 1935 film with its title moved to its present one by the same user), this title doesn't make sense to redirect to the one released in 2019 as it could give the impression that this is part of a series, also refers to other movies with the same title alongside it, or similar. I'd say delete it unless someone can provide a justification here, though I am open to being swayed otherwise. Regards, SONIC678 01:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It appears the 1935 and 2019 films are the only articles about films named Honeyland on Wikipedia. A hatnote on each page suffices. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this user being blocked is really relevant to the discussion since they were not blocked when this was created. In any case, I think weak delete - this has been the title of a disambiguation page but such a page no-longer exists as a brief discussion found that the more recent film is the primary topic. I'm not sure how or why this ended up targeting that one given the awkward disambiguator. A7V2 (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not the name of a film studio, even then, it wouldn't use (films). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing to have a plural redirect to the base name singular as it suggests its an article about multiple films. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:58, 24 May 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).

Template:Ancor[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. ✗plicit 00:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This object is rarely used, and it is not a common misspelling. It is an Italian adverb and has no meaning related to the anchor. Q𝟤𝟪 00:19, 22 May 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).

Template:Anchro[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. ✗plicit 00:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please deal with this spelling mistake. It seems that no one is using it. Let's delete it Q𝟤𝟪 00:18, 22 May 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_May_22&oldid=1161432298"