Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 16, 2023.

Normal dice[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) Duckmather (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this redirect should be deleted because: a. it is only linked to by one page, that being Sicherman dice; b. the link in Sicherman dice could easily be replaced with a pipe; c. it is not likely to be used anywhere else; and d. it is not a search term likely to be used to search for the target page (Dice) or the target section (Dice#Common_variations). If there is a reason we should keep this redirect, please tell me. (This is a similar situation to the previously deleted redirect page Strange rules.) TypoEater (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my view, "normal dice" most likely refers to "six-sided dice" which redirects to that section, where there is information on them. It does get fairly steady pageviews, as well, and the one link seems like a WP:NOTBROKEN issue (also, there are lots of redirects that aren't linked from anywhere because they can be used as search terms). So, overall, keep. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Edward-Woodrow covered the relevant points. - Darker Dreams (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Edward-Woodrow. I would not have created this redirect myself, but now that it is here, even if the likelihood of its being useful is low, it is possible, and there is nothing whatever to be gained by deleting it. I.e. WP:NOTBROKEN. JBW (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Tumblr sexyman[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. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has any reliable third-party publication referred to Sans as a "Tumblr sexyman"? Should the page instead redirect to The Lorax (film) because of the Once-Ler? What is the rationale here? Lizardcreator (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I remember correctly, Sans won the "Tumblr Sexyman" competition not too long ago, last year I believe. Ironically, this tournament actually did reach mainstream coverage when it was going on because of how prominent the competition ended up turning out. Looking at it right now, this event's conclusion was covered by GamesRadar, Fanbyte, Anime News Network, Dot Esports, PC Gamer, Kotaku, and this was just at a glance as I'm sure there's quite a few more niche coverages of this as well. That being said, despite this coverage, I think I'm still undecided on this one, as the "Tumblr Sexyman" is an annual occurrence with inevitably multiple victors, and no exclusive topic. On the flipside, this title is discussed and sourced at Sans (Undertale)#Reception (and I don't think it's discussed in any other article), so in the absence of a better target, I feel this redirect should at the very least point towards that section. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...I'm gonna be honest, I don't even remember why I made this redirect. I do think it has some sort of justification however. I don't believe any other character is discussed by reliable sources to be the "Tumblr sexyman", and it is a legitimate term and topic, so while yeah from a culture perspective the redirect would go to those places... but Sans is the one that was labelled the sexyman by sources. Yes it is a weird redirect, but it's also fair enough to have in my eyes. NegativeMP1 07:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(User:NegativeMP1 The reason it was created was discussed above, 245,000 people voted for Sans to win the Tumblr Sexyman tournament in 2022. [1], it was quite a big ordeal and probably the "sexyman" that caught the most coverage.) Utopes (talk / cont) 00:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that as in I don't remember why I decided that the redirect was necessary or when I made it. I probably made this redirect out of random. NegativeMP1 01:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no sensible target for this due to the amount of characters involved. Despite the media coverage, search function exists and not everything should be forced to redirect somewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the findings above. If I understood this redirect correctly it makes as much sense as redirecting The Academy Awards for Best Actor to Leonardo di Caprio. --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: searching the term "Tumblr sexyman" on Wikipedia produces no other results, so this redirect is not concealing or confusing information. I wouldn't have created the redirect, but I also see no value or gain in deleting it. I also don't see a benefit in making a habit of deleting redirects for the sake of having fewer redirects. - Darker Dreams (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Sans is one of the sexymen, he is only one of several, so it would not make sense to have him be the sole redirect target. I would redirect to Tumblr or just delete. Harej (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

47th Canadian federal election[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 all per WP:CRYSTAL. Complex/Rational 00:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 45th Canadian federal election is scheduled to take place by 2025. The 46th Canadian federal election is currently a redirect to the 45th. Every election redirect beyond that is instead linked to Canada, and all of them are quite WP:TOOSOON to exist as redirects especially when none of these are given any significance at the general Canada page. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get rid of them all. They serve no purpose, projecting into the future 30 or 40 years from now. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Definitely too soon. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL are for articles. If they were relevant these wouldn't be redirects. Feels weird to delete redirects that we assume will eventually be articles. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canada may collapse next year; there's no way to know the future for articles or redirects. There's no guarantee that these will happen and become articles anyway. And nevertheless, the target page of Canada adds no insight into the 46th federal election, much less the 47th through 56th leading us into the 2070s. These add nothing of value in my opinion for readers. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and also delete 46th, all per WP:RFD#D5 (apples to oranges). There is no useful information to go with these speculative titles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per Ivanvector. Rare that anything further than a Next Singaporean general election type article will be useful. Having these show up in the search bar seems likely to cause active confusion. CMD (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi all, can they be moved to draft space instead? Ebbedlila (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Proto-Nostratic[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. Complex/Rational 00:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nostratic languages hypothesis is largely discredited in mainstream linguistics, so retaining a "Proto-Nostratic" page, even just as a redirect, would seem to overly legitimize it in contrast to PROFRINGE. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a legitimate search term. The Nostratic hypothesis comes in a package with its reconstructed proto-language. The latter is in no way fringier than the former. Having a fleshed-out full article about Proto-Nostratic next to Nostratic languages would violate WP:PROFRINGE. However, the mere existence of a redirect does not. –Austronesier (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects to a hypothesis do not confer legitimacy, or say anything about whether the hypothesis is correct. For that reason, it's irrelevant whether mainstream linguistics agrees or disagrees with the concept of the Nostratic languages. It's still an encyclopedic topic even if it's not accepted as correct, and redirects from related terms that readers might search for are appropriate. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Proto-Nostratic is mentioned multiple times within the article, and in one of the sources cited. A search pulls up relevant results. WP:PROFRINGE never makes a statement about redirects, and I don't read it in any way that would prevent redirects from valid search terms (this isn't close to being a borderline valid search term, it's definitely valid). It does our readers much more good to keep this redirect around than not to – someone may see the term, search it, and be taken to the right article, where they can see the fringe status of the Nostratic hypothesis. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Jack Colero[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. Complex/Rational 00:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful: no mention at target. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems to be a character from The Nutshack, a program that aired in Myx. --Lenticel (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I wasn't able to figure out why it was targeted here in the first place. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Third Iraqi Republic[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. Complex/Rational 00:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third? The only hits I can find for "third iraqi republic" are an article from Rudaw Media Network, two forums, and a youtube video. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the Iraqi Republic (1958–1968) is known as the "First Iraqi Republic" (it was the first to replace the monarchy), and Ba'athist Iraq called itself a republic (but never the "second republic") although it was a one-party totalitarian state. That was eventually replaced by the current republic, but is it the third or the second, or is it a continuation or restoration of the first? More importantly, is it formally called any of those? It doesn't seem to be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above findings; even if this does count as the Third Republic these terms do not receive nearly enough use to justify redirects. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Birb[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 DoggoLingo#Other animals. Complex/Rational 00:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to DoggoLingo, where the use of the term is discussed. Tevildo (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Guinea-Malabo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 24#Guinea-Malabo

Ironheart (Avataars: Covenant of the Shield)[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. Complex/Rational 00:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible disambiguators for a topic that is no longer discussed at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

The Long Night (1975 film)[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) Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting mixed information when looking into this film, but something that appears to be clear is that this film was initially released in 1974, and not 1975. Also, this article doesn't include this particular English title anywhere, although it could possibly be a translation from "The Big Night". There's also Long Night, which is a disambiguation page that lists other films with different years, but 1974 or 1975 are not among them. For now, while this film could have seemingly been called "The Long Night", the year disambiguator of "1975" appears to be contradictory. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Creator comment): If I made a mistake here I apologise - I thought this was the film. Could be wrong! Britfilm (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cinematografo gives 74, and so do all books in Italian. But sources in English ([2],BFI) do give 75, which I am assuming, is the year the film was distributed in the UK. Either way, it is contradictory and the redirect needs to be renamed (with 1974) in my view. As for the existing translation of the title, The Long Night seems correct; The Big Night? I can't find it for the Cervi film (but rather for La notte brava (59), so maybe the article should be amended on that point). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If sources say 1975, and it was distributed in the UK in 1975, it seems like a plausible mistake to make. I'd keep based on that and create an additional redirect for 1974. {{r from incorrect name}} can be used if desired. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create a separate redirect for 1974 (and tag per Skarmory above). 1975 is clearly the year that the film was distributed in the UK, so it's definitely a plausible mistake to make. CycloneYoris talk! 09:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Kimi Merk[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 💬 09:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Kimi" is not mentioned anywhere in this article as an alternate name for Kai. Searching for "Kimi Merk" on Google shows results for a completely different person born in July 2004, whereas this article is for someone with a 1998 birthday. This "Kimi" could seemingly be related to Kai, maybe they're a sibling or something, however this would be just a guess and is entirely unclear based on the contents of the article and references, as it currently stands. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Ice Oscillator[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. No additions were made at Analog Brothers. Jay 💬 09:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching this phrase on Google brings up a completely different set of topics related to Arctic oscillation (although Antarctic oscillation also exists). Also, this nickname does not appear to be listed at the target page. I'd suggest to either retarget this, or delete it for now. (It may be a nickname for Ice-T, but it is currently undocumented at his wiki page and still potentially ambiguous with other topics especially if it's not a common name he goes by) Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the page Analog_Brothers has an unsourced reference to Ice-T as Ice Oscillator. If that reference can be sourced the redirect can go to either the Analog Brothers page or the same reference can be used to add it to the Ice-T page. If it can't be sourced, the comment should be removed and I support deleting the redirect until a clearer target can be determined. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

FoxtrotGPS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 24#FoxtrotGPS

Emerillon (software)[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 💬 09:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned at the target page. This page had been restructured extensively in the last month or so and it doesn't seem like this title has a useful target anymore. This particular entry seems to have been removed from the page back in 2018, and the section it targeted seems to have disappeared what seems to be recently, via a near complete article-rewrite. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I revamped the article and removed or reorganised the sections to make the article better. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Climber (climbing)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 24#Climber (climbing)

Hey must be the money[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 22:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lyric from the song, and a pretty iconic lyric at that. This being said, I don't know how plausible of a redirect this would be. On one hand, I'm led to believe that this phrase unequivocally refers to the target in question. However, "lyric redirects" I'd imagine can be quite divisive with how they are spelled/formatted/punctuated. To that end, I don't think this will be a useful redirect as Wikipedia is not a search engine to look up lyrics; Google gives a proper result for the accurate name of the song in seconds. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

America's Day at the Races.[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 22:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The period at the end makes this an implausible search term (was fixed very soon after via a page move; the mistake was likely made due to copying the last phrase in the lead where this program was mentioned). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep plausible typo - per how it was created. Not obstructing navigation or search. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titles with random/indiscriminate punctuation aren't going to obstruct navigation necessarily (if you type just up until the end of the title), but they certainly make WhatLinksHere pages incredibly messy and gives readers more questions than answers about "why the period version exists in the first place". This particular redirect isn't even a spelling error; its a clear-cut WP:UNNATURAL redirect that existed only as an immediately-fixed fluke. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Unnatural isn't policy... and even if it were the manner in which this redirect was created explains exactly why it's not unnatural with modern use. Meanwhile, what links here has a "hide redirects" checkbox. I'm not saying I would have deliberately created this redirect, but I also wouldn't have nominated it for deletion saying it's some inconceivably bizarre thing that is wildly unlikely to ever see traffic. - Darker Dreams (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a recently created and moved page with typo. Would have qualified for G3. Jay 💬 06:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Jay. Implausible and unnecessary. CycloneYoris talk! 10:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

LATAM[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 LATAM Airlines. There appears to be unanimous agreement in this discussion, despite some tangential history involving DAB page placement. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic for LATAM is its largest subsidiary airline, LATAM Airlines, aka LATAM Chile, not the parent company. Would boldly retarget, but there has been some discussion and confusion in the past about how all these articles are named and arranged, so best to discuss. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Intrisit and TheAafi who were recently involved in a technical move request related to this redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added rcat(s) and rcat shell for the title and removed the then first entry from the list as the "LATAM" title far out weighs it as depicted in my edits. Checking out the page history for "LATAM", it seems TheAafi is first and foremost a page mover, but they are confused with the double-round-robin page moves seen as they did it twice in fear of a user blocakade. For me, I support the title with "(disambiguation)" attached be moved to the base title per WP:MALPLACED. The move to "LATAM Chile" was for me bordered more on personal opinions, not that I did it anyway. Ping an admin as well for a technical solution to this as an adddon. Intrisit (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a primary topic discussion. Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the disambiguation page, and the suggested target LATAM Airlines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi: This rdr discussion is waiting for your input! I invoked an RMTR on this name/title and you responded to it, only to reverse your decision instantly and I don't know why! I know you're busy with other areas here on WP, but at least let's agree on what to do with this so we can move on! This discussion has been relisted by Jay once and has been running for over a week now. Please reply!Intrisit (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Intrisit, thanks for the ping. I have been very less active over the last few weeks due to some other occupancies but since you have mentioned me here, I would respond on two things. 1: At the RMT, we process, non-controversial technical requests i.e. requests that are unlikely to be opposed by anyone. I felt that WP:MALPLACED applied, and that the request was not a controversial one, and moved the page, and (meanwhile) it appeared that the request was contested, making it no more a "non-controversial request". 2: That's to say, non-controversial requests require proper discussions which made me reverse my action.
Besides this, I feel I personally agree with you on having the dab page at LATAM. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6: Sorry I'm responding after you, I was chacking on my health! Now that it's back, it seems like we're almost hitting a conclusion on this rdr. But for the record, TheAafi, the controversy around the page/rdr moves of this title was more on directing this rdr to LATAM Airlines Group (which 98% of the WP articles with the "LATAM" name are or were affiliated to) than to a DAB page of these articles which isn't that bad, considering that this is an encyclopedia which thrives on clarities and disambiguations. I for one support LATAM being a title and not an rdr target, as other articles bearing the "LATAM" name were all once under LATAM Airline Group. As Dekimasu noted to me at a La República discussion (which I saw you pop there for a bit) about the tendency of a primary topic title split beteen its actual page and the related DAB page, I know where I stand on this. But I'm only interested about what constitutes a DAB on an ambiguous title having "(disambiguation)", hence my stance and confusion of/on the WP:MALPLACED guide. I'll have either an RFC or a village pump proposal on how to situate DAB and MALPLACED so as not to cite that for DABs ever again! Also citing Viiv. Intrisit (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intrisit: I still don't completely follow you; if a term (i.e. base name) has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, either as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT or as the title of an article itself, then the disambiguation page for that term must exist at term (disambiguation) per WP:DABNAME. Such dab pages are not MALPLACED. Are you saying that you think no disambiguation page should have a (disambiguation) qualifier? If so, you are arguing that primary redirects shouldn't exist, which goes against current disambiguation guidelines. The question here, again, is what is the primary topic for LATAM, which as far as I can tell, none of your comments really address. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

JDRO[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 Speedy Delete, G7. by User:Fastily Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XXXTentacion's birthname initials. A Google search for "JDRO" shows nothing related to X, and I do not think this will be a likely search term for his wiki page. No evidence he was referred to by this acronym. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Dramáticas (2023 TV Series[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 💬 07:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No parenthesis at the end, and is an WP:RDAB situation. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Return to the Kingdom of Fire[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. Jay 💬 07:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect to an album was spelled incorrectly when it was creation, but was very swiftly page-moved to the correct phrase shortly after (Return to the Kingdom of Fife). Typos are one thing, but spelling "Fife" as "Fire" makes this an entirely different word. While this was indeed misspelled previously, I don't think this is a plausibly misspelled search term in the future as "Kingdom of Fire" has an entirely different meaning than the name of the album. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may not be a plausable alternative search term, but it is clearly a plausable typo. If the title is needed for something else that becomes notable a redirect existing doesn't impede building an article. Darker Dreams (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice against redirecting to another article in the future if a different thing titled "Return to the Kingdom of Fire" makes it onto Wikipedia down the line. For now, this is a somewhat plausible typo (searching it on quotation marks in google pulls up mostly results for its current target, which also means it happens at times), so deletion is unnecessary. (I added {{r from incorrect name}} to the redirect, by the way.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Libiquity Taurinus[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 💬 07:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar situation to the Gluglug in the fact that it is not mentioned at the target page. A slight difference, however, is that this laptop is mentioned in the title of the 9th reference. This is because this laptop uses Libreboot, but it is unclear whether people searching for this laptop would be surprised by a redirect to an article about its boot system where it is not mentioned. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Gluglug[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 23#Gluglug

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_16&oldid=1177424075"