Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 5, 2024.

Mythical Pokémon[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 List of Pokémon. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 02:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of Pokémon. I assume at the time of me making this there was originally a section dedicated to the concept. If not then I don't know why it's here. I think now its better suited on the List of Pokémon article as that is where the concept is explained in some form of detail. CaptainGalaxy 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of Pokémon per Captain Galaxy. Skynxnex (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Captain Galaxy. (I think this one is going to be pretty uncontroversial.) Fieari (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (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).

Climate: The Movie[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 💬 08:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This documentary is not even mentioned in the redirect target. Leyo 22:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 5 April 2024 (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).

Holy Chao[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. Unanimous Keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Okmrman (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An important Discordian concept (see [1] ), so the redirect should go here. It is unclear to me why the section no longer exists when a source for it as an important concept can so easily be found on google books. Furius (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's inaccurate, tens of thousands of redirects are related to wording which are not listed on their target pages. This one should be mentioned on the page though (was it removed in the deletion spurts?) so is one of the outliers of this deletion batch (unusual misspellings should be removed, thanks for finding a bunch of those, but terms such as this are relevant and known terminology). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This spate of nominations seems very unfair, per being time consuming and an addition to the edits deleting much of Wikipedia's Discordian collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anti-discordian editor on a spreeEditor who has made dozens of apparently anti-Discordian edits doesn't justify deletion of this redirect, which was and should be covered in the article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs) 16:05, April 6, 2024 (UTC)
I have warned user Skyerise at their talk page for this personnal attack and lack of good faith. Veverve (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I can't easily find reference to the Holy Chao, (and Google Books won't let me open that source Furius linked), the Sacred Chao is an important-- and mentioned-- symbol and concept in Discordianism, and even in the absence of any other context, I can easily see a user forgetting that the correct word in question is "Sacred" and typing "Holy" instead.
That said, from Randy and Furius's words, I'm guessing "Holy Chao" DOES have its own meaning distinct from "Sacred Chao" in respect to Discordianism. In which case, the concept needs to be re-added to the page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the term is now mentioned in the target page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep redirects are cheap and I see no compelling reason to delete this one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2024 (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).

Discorianism[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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Okmrman (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely typographical mistake, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:RTYPO. One dropped letter does not make a redirect implausible. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RTYPO. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this plausible misspelling for a difficult word. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:27, 11 April 2024 (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).

Dischordian[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. Unanimous Keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Okmrman (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely typographical mistake, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not unlikely at all. Kk.urban (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems sufficiently plausible. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (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).

Discodianism[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. Unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) Okmrman (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely typographical mistake, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol. This redirect should definitely go to Sacred Cod. EEng, what say you. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or Saturday Night Fever. EEng 17:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not entirely certain what Randy and Eeng are talking about, per WP:RTYPO one dropped letter does not make a redirect implausible. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a perfectly plausible typo. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this plausible misspelling for a difficult word. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:27, 11 April 2024 (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).

Dischordianism[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. Unanimous Keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Okmrman (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely typographical mistake, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not unlikely at all. Kk.urban (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very unlikely typo but very likely spelling error. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible spelling mistake. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it would be reasonable to assume this was related to "chord" as well as "cord". Peter James (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (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).

Discorianist[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. 3 unanimous keeps and don't see the scales tipping anytime soon. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Okmrman (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely typographical mistake, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as R from avoided double redirect to Discordianist; as per WP:RTYPO a single dropped letter is not implausible. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, this is not implausible. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this plausible misspelling of a variation of the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:33, 11 April 2024 (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).

Wholly Chao[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. ✗plicit 23:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an unlikely typographical mistake for "holy Chao", and there is no mention of "holy Chao" at the target; thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I disagree as to whether or not "Holy Chao" should be kept, I do agree that this is an implausible redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a Discordian in-joke/pun and is used by Discordians. Skyerise (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Given everything I've learned about Discordianism in the past few days thanks to these discussions, this does seem plausible. That said, a source would be helpful ^^; 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep as the sourced mention of this term is now in the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2024 (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).

Discordia - Hail the Goddess of Chaos and Confusion[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 23:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the name of a book. The book is not mentioned at the target. The work is not mentioned at List of Discordian works either. Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2024 (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).

Hail eris[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Hail eris

Discordian - Runcible Nazarene Cabal[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 23:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2024 (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).

Discordian Society[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. ✗plicit 23:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject not mentioned at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2024 (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).

Discordian eschatology[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 23:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject not mentioned at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We do not appear to have any coverage of this topic. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Immanentize the eschaton, which should be expanded to include Discordian views on the subject. Skyerise (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, really not needed as there is no coverage of this subject. No evident connection between discordianism and eschatology on Wikipedia, to my understanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:37, 11 April 2024 (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).

Law of Eristic Escalation[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 23:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2024 (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).

Law of fives[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Law of fives

Discordianisml[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 23:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical, improbable typographical mistake: I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletel: Unlikely/unnatural typo. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely to randomly add an L at the end. Kk.urban (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2024 (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).

Operation Mindyucky[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 23:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in reference to Discordianism#Operation_Mindfuck? Unless this specific censorship of the term is used elsewhere, Delete under WP:NEO. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results pulls up near zero reference to people actually using this term-- either it's pulling up Wikipedia, or somehow magically de-censoring it and pulling up results for Operation Mindfuck. Running "Operation Mindyucky -mindfuck -wikipedia" pulled up nothing at all. Pretty solidly WP:NEO, I think. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rare instance where nominator was actually valid. Okmrman (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not available at target. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2024 (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).

Discordian Date[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 Discordian calendar. WP:SNOW, not much else to do. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 02:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical, so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Discordian calendar. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per 1234quer1234qwer, proposed new target handily and easily covers the concept of a "Discordian date". 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2024 (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).

Pentabarf[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. Section was restored, and term is now mentioned at the target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore relevant section, which can be found here. (There may be a more recent revision of this section, I'll leave finding it up to the editor. This page's history is a nightmare.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you want to restore is only relying on a primary source. Veverve (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See: Invented Religions by Carole M. Cusack, already linked to by user:Furius in another discussion. Twenty seconds to find that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Veverve yammers on incessantly about WP:BURDEN, but ignores WP:BEFORE. Skyerise (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, since my comment, the section has been successfully restored. With that done, Keep. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Restore per the discussion. I'm not understanding why "relying on a primary source" would exclude redirects. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that section was removed because it is unsourced - no RS. Anyone can see that. No mention at target.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please notice that the section has been restored, with sources. This is usually one route for allowing a redirect, don't know why it would be any different here. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the section has been restored with secondary sources, so the given reason for deletion is no longer accurate. Hatman31 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section has been restored with what appears to be one secondary source and one primary source (Principia Discordia). So this is acceptable and it has been returned to the article with its own section title. Now there is a mention at target. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2024 (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).

Chao (Discordianism)[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. Holy Chao snow-closed as keep, and this is a refined version of that containing a valid disambiguator. A section no longer existing isn't a reason to delete if the topic is still covered at the page, which it is. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 02:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section does not exist anymore, so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An important Discordian concept (see [2] ), so the redirect should go here. It is unclear to me why the section no longer exists when a source for it as an important concept can so easily be found on google books. Furius (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The sacred Chao" is mentioned and pictured in the article. Furius (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Furius, and also, add a section on Discordianism to Chao. The Sacred Chao is an important, and mentioned, concept and symbol and Discordianism. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2024 (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).

Afflux[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Afflux

Greyface[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. Tagged with {{R with no mention}} so that mention be added / relevant section restored at the target. Jay 💬 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned as important Dischordian concepts here: [3], so a redirect is appropriate. Furius (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is a major topic of Discordianism, and was it removed from the article or just not mentioned? You've WikiHatcheded Wikipedia's Discordian collection over a two or more day period, so we don't know if it was mentioned up until a few days ago or not. But yes, this is a major topic of the religion and removing it seems to show you may be unaware of the topic and are editing without this awareness. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore relevant section, which can be found here. I'll note that newer revisions of this section may exist somewhere in the history; I'll leave finding said revisions up to the editor, because holy hell, this page's history is a NIGHTMARE. (Also, Veverve, buddy, c'mon. This is getting repetitive.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you want to restore is only relying on a primary source. Veverve (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furius already mentioned a secondary source earlier in this discussion (the book Invented Religions by Carole M. Cusack). Just... plug that in. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and based on primary source only so far. I have not seen this in a secondary source mentioned above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not understanding the reasoning here. This is mentioned in the primary source and a secondary source, and is a known component of Discordianism. A redirect to the religion is not only harmless but is valuable to finding the topic. And of course it should be restored per the secondary source above but if there is such opposition to all things topic related and those who use common sense to recognize the connection (some very personal things have been said at another page, Steve) this at least merits a redirect. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Furius above has provided a secondary source [4]. Restore relevant section and redirect. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2024 (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).

Order of Accendo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Order of Accendo

POEE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#POEE

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (video game)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (disambiguation). WP:SNOW, multiple video games, nothing else to do. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 02:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. Retarget to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2024 (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).

Civilopedia[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 23:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect target mentions nothing about Civilopedia Okmrman (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing links here, and as the nom mentioned, Civilization (series) doesn't talk about it. 162 etc. (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's a major feature in the games, see [5]. Cremastra (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at the target, nor should it, so keeping this at the current target is presently not suitable. Technically bears some passing mentions within different Civ articles, such as Civilization (video game) and Civilization II, as well as passing mentions in refs in the form of civilopedia.net and its online version. Really not important enough to keep as a redirect though, while missing a place for dedicated content. People looking for information about a particular game feature would be better off looking at the fanwiki which is sure to have picked leagues through this by now. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. I will note that WP:FANDOM is not a reliable source and cannot be determined to prove if something is notable for inclusion here, and not all features of a game ought to be included as redirects, anyway. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (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).

Stǫklar[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 23:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an Old Norse word for the aspergillum, not used in the target, thus confusing to the reader. Викидим (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2024 (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).

Irl A. Gladfelter[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. Thanks to Jay for adding the mention and 162 etc. for providing the source. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Irl A. Gladfelter?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an interesting one. The Irl A. Gladfelter page used to be an article on the man, until it was submitted to AfD in 2016. The verdict was to redirect to Augustana Catholic Church, which had a mention in... the list of leaders?? That's not a feature in the page where it stands.
So, now diving into the history of Augustana Catholic Church, it at the time was a much more extensive article, which had, as a section, a list of the church's leadership-- including Irl himself. While at one point an IP editor removed his name from the list, another editor eventually added his name elsewhere-- explaining that he'd left the leadership of the church.
Then, interestingly enough, around 2021, user:Veverve (who, yes, is the one who nominated the redirect to begin with) began... what I can only describe as a campaign of stub-ifying this article?? A project that would be assisted by user:TheLionHasSeen. Over the years since 2021, the page went from a fairly decently sized article that had a good deal of information on this church, to a near-stub that paradoxically both describes it as no longer existing yet also being currently active in Haiti, Ecuador, and Africa, a process that... while I understand that every step of the way had some sort of explanation or another, I still find... intensely odd.
In any case, given previous iterations of this page listed Gladfelter as the founder of this church, I'd say that there should be a mention?? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there should definitely be a mention. Veverve, who still ironically claims to be retird, seems to be a zealous purist. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that too-- Veverve added that "I'm retired" bit to his page BEFORE he started pruning at this article. also, rq, I know I mentioned you "assisting" with the pruning, what I meant by that was that around February, you made... one edit, that removed 6257 bytes worth of info. By contrast, Veverve has made 21 edits to the article since December 2021, over 4 discrete days, that total up to... hold on, lemme get my calculator... 16,727 bytes worth of info. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite fine. I understood what you were stating. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a campaign of stub-ifying this article: WP:BURDEN, and please refrain from personnal attacks, I have nothing else to say.
As for mentioning this person in the article: if you can provide any WP:RS for this information, I would not oppose it being in the article. But I have checked, and there is no RS on this person. Veverve (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took two seconds to Google his obituary: "He founded the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, which he directed until his resignation in 2011"[6] Keep. 162 etc. (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"(Paid Obituary)": so WP:SPS and WP:SPONSORED, not a RS that attests any notability. Veverve (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it as {{Better source needed}}. Jay 💬 06:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore relevant text to the article, thank you user:162 etc. for finding the obituary 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added mention with 162 etc.'s source. Jay 💬 09:16, 12 April 2024 (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).

Ahoi Tour[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. Limited participation despite two relists. However changing target to a suggested Rammstein#Live performances. Jay 💬 08:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Ahoi" does not appear at the target in any capacity, and is never alluded to in the form of a tour. In fact, "tour" ALSO does not appear at the target, besides an unnamed "world tour" mention in the 30 thousand byte article. Does not appear to be a currently helpful redirect as we have no content about the "Ahoi Tour" at this page. There are a few mentions of this tour sprinkled around Wikipedia, notably at Rammstein, Wiener Stadthalle (the arena it was once held at), and List of entertainment events at the Olimpiyskiy Stadium for list where it is contained in. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:31, 20 March 2024 (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 23:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. Xplicit is right in that that's... a LOT of page history. This started out as an entire page on the Ahoi Tour, created in March 2012 by user:The True Reality Returns under their original account, user:Thetruereality. It stayed as an article for the next nine years, until it was BLAR'd by user:Aspects for failing the notability tests of WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT-- Aspects also noted that it'd been tagged as Needs Additional Citations for most of those nine years. From there, its original target was Rammstein, before it was retargeted to Reise, Reise two years later without (linked-to from page history) discussion.
I don't think restoring the article would help, unless someone can finally cough up the sources that the article lacked for nine years. So, barring that, I'd say retarget back to Rammstein, as it was originally targeted by Aspects. (Perhaps a refinement to Rammstein#Live_performances would help?) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 5 April 2024 (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).

Tracy Grandstaff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Tracy Grandstaff

Le Hameau[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 Hameau. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far too ambiguous. This is just French for "the farm", and could refer to any number of things. I got here looking for Hameau de la Reine. Internet searches for "le hameau" will turn up tourist sites, cafes, farmsteads, etc. Best to just delete this redirect, I think, but it could also perhaps become a dab page. asilvering (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not least because the same has been done in the French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Hameau Rp (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2024 (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).

(Two consecutive apostrophes)[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. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Just realized this redirect has had a slow edit war a few years back between its previous target, Quotation mark, and its current target, Empty string. Though I'm familiar with why both targets are plausible, I believe the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target is Quotation mark since I believe most readers will erroneously type two consecutive apostrophes to find information about the quotation mark since the concept is more familiar to readers since most readers are not familiar with concepts related to coding/computer science. For this reason, retarget to Quotation mark. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't have any lean one way or the other just yet, but I do bring with me the Old RFD template. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lunamann: Dang yep, my handiwork from almost a decade ago. I think I spent a few hours compiling that discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pointing to "Empty string", where it is already hatnote-disambiguated to "Quotation mark" to cover the other potential target page. This keeps things consistent with "" (doubled double-quotes), which are both very common syntax variants to denote an empty string in a multitude of programming languages (sometimes even both of them at the same time). People not familiar with a programming language might run into these strings in a listing and enter them into our search engine wondering what it is. I think, this happens way more often than the other way around, because the only reason to compose a " by doubling a ' would be when working with a keyboard layout not supporting ", which is very rare (if it exists at all). Using the ' ' in natural languages, it is always to frame non-empty strings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with empty string, quotation mark, and double acute accent, double grave accent, umlaut (diacritic), diaeresis (diacritic) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per IP, above. My reasoning is that I went back and forth on which should be the main topic and most likely thing someone would be looking for with this search, first being swayed by one argument then the other, and finally settling on both interpretations are valid and useful, and neither obviously supplants the other. I don't think the hatnote is sufficient in this case, and the IP pointed out that there are two accents that are plausible searches as well, and that really pushed me over towards thinking that a DAB is the way to go here. Fieari (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2024 (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).

Compatibility (biological)[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 Compatibility. Thanks for incorporating the various biological compatibilities! (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not mentioned in target. ltbdl (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 5 April 2024 (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).

George W's palace[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#George W's palace

Telegraph wire[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 Electrical telegraph. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a disambiguation that does not define the term and just causes confusion. The term is not popular, but actually refers to very particular types of wire, so may be notable. In this case WP:RFD#DELETE #10 applies. Викидим (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Electrical telegraph which has the Electrical telegraph#Oceanic telegraph cables section and many mentions to telegraph wires. After all this time WP:REDYES has not lead to an article (this redirect was only created last December), and the link has seen some use since then, so I think it's reasonable to let it be a redirect tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. Telegraph cable may also be better targeted to Electrical telegraph as well. ― Synpath 22:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like a plan. The redirect to nowhere status quo —which I agree isn't great, and I literally wrote the book^W wiki-essay on how aggravating that can be— came about because MenoBot changed the target from Telegraph cable to Cable. Maybe it was slightly careless or a little too blue-eyed of me to just be hopeful and rely on the pre-existing Telegraph cable eventually turning into something more substantial. Do bots like MenoBot do their (sometimes un)helpful work without human interaction?
      At Wikipedia, it is a truth acknowledgedly uncomfortable that an inchoate attempt in the possession of good promise is often not just not wedded up to something better and helped along by another, but rather smashed and flushed – that is to say, the imperfect asset is generally more likely to see its existence terminated, its promise assassinated, and any trace of both it and its raison d'être erased, for that achievement is a mission deletionists live by. I realise I'm liable to be taken too seriously in coming on a bit strong in this, the soapboxing paragraph part of my piece, but whence constitutionally any public corner in These Errant Colonies is of speakers, thou must expect metaphorical or material bow ties and bean pies to soon follow. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Electrical telegraph, which seems obvious and encyclopedically correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2024 (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).

Differential algebraic variety[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Differential algebraic variety

Filtered ring[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Filtered ring

Chord (math)[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 Chord. Creating a mathematics version as well, thanks for the disambig inclusion! (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 02:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Chord (graph theory). Wherever this will redirect, Chord (mathematics) should be created as well once this discussion is closed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify, I don't think either of these could lay claim as to being primary target. As per WP:NOPRIMARY that means we should dabify, even if we only have two potential entries in the DAB. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case just redirect to Chord (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. I forgot to mention this in the nomination; this was actually intended to be the alternative to the current situation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this, for the record. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 5 April 2024 (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).

Avanturine glance[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Avanturine glance

Bagiennik[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 23:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Slavic deity, or any deity. This is a fictional character that is totally not notable. Redirect is senseless, WP:R#DELETE #5 Викидим (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 5 April 2024 (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).

Punctured plane[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Punctured plane

Security & Privacy[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... 17:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refers to the wrong journal (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/24756725) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've combined these two nominations that had identical rationales. Thryduulf (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. With only two journals with similar names, redirecting is inappropriate here, as would be a dab page. Somebody should create an article for the other journal and then a dab note on top of each article should do the job. --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (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).

2024 Ukraine missile strike[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#2024 Ukraine missile strike

10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion

Anarcho-monarchism[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 23:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not used in the target. It is quite unpopular an nonconsensual in general, the researchers use is for Tolkien writing, among other things. If the thing exists, it should merit a separate article. WP:RFD#DELETE #10. Викидим (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2024 (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).

Tantras[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Tantras

Demi (Phantasy Star IV)[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 23:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of any character named "Demi" listed at the target page. Not a helpful redirect for people that search this character, only to find zero info about such character. Used to be a redirect to Characters of Phantasy Star IV but since that's' disappearance, there's not currently a home for this one. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added context: The former target page in question turned into List of Phantasy Star IV characters in 2006, and was dispersed of in 2007. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Would expect this redirect to target a page regarding the concept where the subject of the redirect originated, not a page with a list of humanoid robots. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2024 (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).

Palojärv[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 17:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "Palojärv" in the Estonia article or anywhere else in enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle the second redirect discussed above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 5 April 2024 (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).

Dependence liability[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Dependence liability

"Tiara" (Poem)[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 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily capitalized disambiguator. WP:RDAB should apply in my opinion. Nickps (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - My reading of WP:RDAB is that it's for unlikely disambiguation errors (examples given were inserting random spaces and doubling the parenthesis), but I would argue that using initial caps is not unlikely at all... title case is a thing, after all, and many people use it habitually. If your concern is the quotation marks, that's also not unlikely as poem titles are almost always referred to within quotation marks. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotes don't concern me because, as you said, it's a poem. As a sidenote though, a lot of the stuff in Special:ListRedirects involving quotes would probably not survive an RfD.
    My problem is the capitalized disambiguator. Strictly speaking WP:RDAB is concerned with things like "(Disambiguation)" since linking to such a page is still considered wrong per WP:INTDAB. However, improperly capitalized disambiguators still should not exist since they imply to someone who stumbles upon them that we should make redirects for every capitalized disambiguator. This case is even worse in fact because the correctly capitalized version "Tiara" (poem) never existed. Nickps (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Capitalised disambiguators are equally as plausible as miscapitalisations elsewhere in the search string, they're harmless and at least one person (the creator) found them useful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure about the creator finding it useful. It's an {{R from page move}}. The creator just made the article in the wrong place. Nickps (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that, but redirects from page moves are routinely kept to avoid breaking links, etc. so that's actually an additional reason not to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was kept at the incorrect title for 2 days in 2019. There is precedent for deleting R from moves if the page didn't stay at the incorrect title for long enough, especially when the search term is implausible. I argue that this one is implausible; it only got ~200 views in 5 years, and it's pretty reasonable to assume that most of them intended to reach the correctly capitalized version. Nickps (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping an accidental (and quickly fixed) typo for posterity is not WP:COMMONSENSE. Almost all search engines ignore capitalization. --Викидим (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strong Delete" 2 errors and as noted only here for a short time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. Jay 💬 07:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only one error (poem titles can be validly referred to in quotes), and the convention to deleted capitalized disambiguators has not been supported with any evidence. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disambiguator capitalization aside, the quotation marks make this implausible. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, implausible way of searching for this title, barely existed here, not worth immortalizing this mistake. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2024 (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).

Template:R from subtitle[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 Move. There is consensus to move the redirect to template:R from title and subtitle, and to create an entirely new rcat on Template:R from subtitles alone or similar. Consensus also concluded with the deprecation of the original title. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 22:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this rcat redirect is ambiguous. The term subtitle seems likely to be thought of as referring to a subtitle on its own, but it's clear from previous discussion on the redirect's talk page that - when it was created - this rcat-redirect was intended for use on pages with titles in the form Title: Subtitle. The ambiguity is shown from this rcat's incorrect referencing in comments during RfDs for Outdoor Retreat (2017 discussion) & Animal Parade (2022 discussion), other comments made on the redirect's talk page, and the 20 redirects from a subtitle on its own that are tagged with this rcat-redirect.

This ambiguity is problematic, as it means that redirects from subtitles on their own are being tagged as more specific versions of the target names; when the opposite is likely true. Because of this, and because the rcat {{R from subtitle}} can plausibly refer to both a title-subtitle combination and a subtitle on its own, I propose that it is deleted. (I noticed that there was talk-page discussion on the possibility of this becoming an rcat of its own - however, if desired, something similar could still be achieved with [e.g.] {{R from full name}}, which wouldn't have the same issues regarding ambiguity.)

If consensus is found to delete this redirect, I propose that the redirects currently tagged with {{R from subtitle}} have that rcat replaced with {{R from full name}} (with the exception of the redirects at this list, which I propose have the rcat replaced with {{R from incomplete name}}). I also propose that Template talk:R from subtitle is marked as {{G8-exempt}}, due to containing discussion that may be useful for reference (& potentially for future rcats).

Let me know if there are any queries. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Note: Notified the participants of the previous talk page discussion about this RfD, in addition to the talk pages of this redirect's current & previous targets. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and deprecate. The redirect should be moved to template:R from title and subtitle (categorised under {{R from full name}} if desired) with correct uses migrated there. If the incorrect uses should use a new template:R from subtitle alone (or some similar name) (created as a redirect if separate categorisation is not currently desired). The current title should note that it is deprecated in favour of the two more specific options. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap, and I don't find this confusing. Additional redirects can be created to cover the other cases. BD2412 T 16:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with editor BD2412 that this has not been a source of confusion up to now. Problematic ambiguity (good catch btw, editor ASK) can be easily fixed as noted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paine Ellsworth: With respect, I'd disagree that there hasn't been any confusion up until now - in my opinion, the talk page discussion shows that there was confusion about the meaning of this rcat-redirect from at least 2015. The incorrectly tagged redirects also show that multiple editors using this rcat-redirect have been confused regarding its intended application. Unless there's something I'm missing (please tell me if there is), without this redirect either being deleted or (as Thryduulf suggests) moved and deprecated, I don't see how problems arising as a result of the ambiguity can be easily fixed: from what I can see, it would require someone to continuously check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R from subtitle for any redirects that don't match the target rcat - at which point, why not just have the other (non-ambiguous) rcats/rcat redirects for editors to choose between? All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course like editor BD2412 wrote, I meant that it's not been much of a source of confusion for myself. I do remember some back and forth on the talk pages about it, and I guess the editor who was actually going to turn this redirect into an rcat template in its own right never got around to it. Lot's involved with that, and it apparently was low on the priority list. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually just fell for this one now. The name is definitely ambiguous; I interpreted it as categorising redirects that are solely made up of a subtitle, which I see now is incorrect. Loytra (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I vote to move and deprecate, per Thryduulf. Loytra (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move and deprecate per Thryduulf. Rcat templates or redirects for both full titles and subtitles alone should be created at unambiguous titles. Nickps (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per BD2412. I am not convinced with the current arguments and echo WP:Redirects are cheap. If the technicalities and intent of the redirect are in question, that should be taken to the redirect or target template's talk to determine a consensus, not using an RfD to do so. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be missing something (please tell me if I am), but I don’t see how this could be resolved by a discussion either at Template talk:R from more specific name or Template talk:R from subtitle? From my perspective, the issue is with the ambiguity of the title of the redirect itself - the fact that ‘subtitle’ evidently could (and has) been used to refer to both a subtitle on its own, and a title-subtitle combination. Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see how any change to {{R from more specific name}}, or any retargeting of {{R from subtitle}}, could fix the fundamental issue with the ambiguity of the name of the redirect itself - hence why I brought it to RfD. In my view, this is one of the circumstances in which redirects are not cheap - imo, WP:R#D2 applies, as the present title is clearly a cause of some confusion. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect of this discussion. My apologies, I probably should have done this earlier on rather than two relists in. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the name of this RCAT template is confusing. My first thought was that it was intended for precisely the exceptional cases identified by A smart kitten. I would not have guessed from the template name that it is actually for the redirects from the form "Title: subtitle" to "Title". I support suggestion by Thryduulf to deprecate this. older ≠ wiser 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, deprecate, create new cat: we need an Rcat for "R from subtitle alone", as well as this one for "R from title plus subtitle", and the existing Rcat should lead the editor to a page clarifyng the difference. PamD 16:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and deprecate per Thryduulf Okmrman (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the consensus in this discussion is for moving and deprecating, would !voters prefer an actual {{redirect template}} at the current title (Template:R from subtitle), or a {{template disambiguation}} page, or something else? Personally, I’d be in favour of a template-dab, as it seems to be the ideal sort of thing to use for an otherwise ambiguous template name; and I’m not sure in practice how deprecating an rcat-redirect would otherwise work (though I am open to ideas). Pinging previous participants in this RfD: @Thryduulf, BD2412, Paine Ellsworth, Loytra, Nickps, Trailblazer101, Bkonrad, PamD, and Okmrman. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd also be in favour of a template disambiguation? As you noted, I'm not quite sure how else this would work. I'd love to hear the input of other users, though! Loytra (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose, a template disambiguation would do. Okmrman (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2024 (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).

Verticon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Verticon

Chewing treats[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 23:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target; ambiguous term Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 20:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should it redirect to Chew toy instead? Jarble (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not since a "dog treat" is food and "dog toy/chew toy" is not food. (Well, except the rawhide and bone ones.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2024 (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).

American Comparative Literature Association[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 23:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target is a disambig page; we don't have an article on this subject or anything that mentions it. Rusalkii (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2024 (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).

Miracle mice[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 23:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interestingly enough, back when the article was first stubbed back in 2005, "Miracle mice" was the only thing it talked about-- something that would be removed by an IP editor on February 2006. Given the Miracle mice mentioned suffered from a lack of sources and notability, and the page has come a LONG way since, I don't think restoring a mention is necessary. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2024 (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).

Offensives[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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, a plural term may have a primary topic even when its singular form doesn't, and this is one of them. None of the topics listed at the DAB page are possibly referred to as "offensives", except for the type of military operation. Other similar situations are Musicals (points to Musical theatre rather than the DAB page Musical) and Abstracts (points to Abstract (summary) rather than Abstract). Therefore, I'm proposing to retarget this redirect to Offensive (military). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Fighting words, a pluralized subject mentioned at the nominated redirect's current target disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, multiple military operations and multiple fighting words. And generally speaking imo, variations between singular and plural forms can be confusing and should be kept on the safe side of disambiguation unless there's overwhelming evidence for one way over another for a separate subject, doesn't seem to be the case here. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:57, 11 April 2024 (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 Adventures of Sajo and her Beaver People[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 💬 17:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect handles a trivial case of capitalization ("Her" vs. "her"). No one searching for the page will be thwarted by this difference. Dsiedler (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an {{R from move}}. Why should it be deleted? As the template says, This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it should not be deleted, especially as some newer editors may not be familiar with the capitalisation rules and thus a redirect will help in case they make a mistake. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely harmless redirect; don't see a strong case for deletion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow not a single person among the last four has said the word "keep", so I will. Keep, an R from Move that was at the title in question for 9 years from 2014 to 2023. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:49, 12 April 2024 (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).

Bharat Rs[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) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No related search result on Google whatsoever. Northern Moonlight 07:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "₨" (which could easily be typed as "Rs") is an older symbol for the Rupee which is still used for non-Indian Rupees, and may still be used by those who don't have easy access to the current symbol for the Indian rupee, ₹. In addition, Bharat/Bhārat is an alternate name for India.
As a note, while Google does not do so for "Bhārata Rs" or "Bhārat Rs", it WILL pull up the currency conversion calculator for the Indian Rupee with the search prompt "Bharat Rs". 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 5 April 2024 (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).

Farming sim[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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article Farming Simulator is more popular than farm life sim, I think it should redirect there instead. A disambig could also be made for these two topics but I prefer the former. For proof, see https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Farm_life_sim%7CFarming_Simulator JuniperChill (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose See WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:DIFFCAPS. "Farming sim" and "farming simulator" in lowercase should both go to "Farm life sim". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose given how commonly other games are referred to as "farming sim(s)", I don't think Farming Simulator is the primary topic for farming sim. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Zxcvbnm and Skynxnex. Story of Seasons and Stardew Valley are other games in the Farm Life Sim genre that are just as or more popular/notable than Farming Simulator, it'd be a disservice to people asking for the genre these games belong to to redirect all of them to Farming Simulator. In addition, "Farming sim" is a viable and frequently used moniker for this genre. If the reader DID actually want to go to Farming Simulator, Farm life sim already has a hatnote up at the top. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per et. al above. Just because a specific game exists in a genre doesn't mean it should redirect to THAT specific game. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 15:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I am now formally closing (withdrawing) this discussion, since it would be a WP:SNOW closure at this point. Anyone who hasn't commented/participated (i.e. uninvolved) can close this discussion but I cannot do this as I opened the request and are uninvolved. I never thought this was going to be four opposes within five hours. (this is an unofficial RFD closure btw) JuniperChill (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2024 (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).

Yggdrasil (Dungeons & Dragons)[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 Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)#Yggdrasil. WP:SNOW, not much else to do. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dungeons and dragons is not mentioned in the target page. ltbdl (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)#Yggdrasil Okmrman (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2024 (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).

E2023[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 💬 08:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very obscure and confusing redirect, I was not able to find E2023 in this sense anywhere, even in the context of elections this abbreviation does not seem to be used. Delete per consensus on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 28#E2027. Викидим (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No correlation found. No good alternative targets. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd almost suggest a speedy deletion as patent nonsense, but I guess a formal RfD gives someone a chance to justify this somehow. I doubt it though. Fieari (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reader really expected to type in the whole long title "2023 Estonian parliamentary election" every time one goes to visit the page? DJ Sturm (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2024 (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).

E2019[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 💬 08:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very obscure and confusing redirect, I was not able to find E2019 in this sense anywhere, even in the context of elections this abbreviation deos not seem to be used. Delete per consensus on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 28#E2027. Викидим (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No correlation found. No good alternative targets. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd almost suggest a speedy deletion as patent nonsense, but I guess a formal RfD gives someone a chance to justify this somehow. I doubt it though. Fieari (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2024 (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).

Psychological addiction[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Psychological addiction

2023 Islamabad local government elections[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 💬 08:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect: the 2023 elections did not happen (neither did the 2022). Delete. Викидим (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't seem to ever be useful, especially not to a "next" title. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:47, 12 April 2024 (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).

Draft:Windows 8.4[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 by El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this redirect need to exist? Windows 8.4 does not even refer to Windows 10. In fact, not even Windows 8.2-8.3 exists, nor does 8.5+. Should be deleted. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was created as a redirect (i.e. not as the result of a page move or anything), but there does not appear to have ever been a version of Windows numbered 8.4 - all the google results are for version 8.4 of various different software products named "Something (for) Windows", none of which appear to be particularly notable versions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Also doesn't seem like it's a common enough misnomer that having a redirect here would help prevent future attempted draft creations. Skynxnex (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: as creator of RfD, I think that the user who created it (User:13.234.2.FortytwoUser) may evade their block. Regardless, this redirect really doesn't need to exist in the future. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 15:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well never mind. The blocking admin, El C, deleted it via speedy under G3 blatant hoax. Though I still think it still should be salted. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 15:33, 5 April 2024 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_5&oldid=1220460806"