Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects run the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

December 7[edit]

December 6[edit]

YOU crank that souljah boy[edit]

Only 10 pageviews over 6 months, and i can't find anything about this phrase on the page or from a google search. dudhhrContribs 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: If "Souljah" is considering a reasonable misspelling of "Soulja", the redirect should be kept. pbp 06:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • DAFT and delete: Sounds like a threat, would also nominate YOU crank that soulja boy for similar reasons. (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
IP has made only a handful of edits
It makes sense if you've listened to the song pbp 00:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Souljah Boy already redirects to the artist page. I'm not against redirecting well-known lyrics to their songs, but I'm skeptical of this one given the idiosyncratic formatting and spelling. And such redirects are most helpful when a reader may not know the correct name of the song, e.g., Teenage wasteland. But in this case, both the song title and artist name are already there. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems like the goal here was to use all-caps to reflect the emphasis of this recurring lyric and then have top predicted search hits reveal to searchers the song and adtist (as BDD explains). I have no strong feelings either way, but I would feel better about the properly spelled YOU crank that soulja boy. But it's not like we have an entry for this song at YOU (a redirect to You (disambiguation)). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete since the properly spelled version of the redirect exists (which I did not anticipate when I posted above) and fulfills the apparent goal here. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to allow the November 18 log page to be closed. Seems that consensus has already been reached, since participants have agreed that deletion is the most viable solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


Filenames associated with the game's storyline and progression, but that's it. Although the mechanic is explained in the target article, the filenames themselves is not. These titles are only known to people inside of the game's fandom and are not standalone terms/searchwords that are known separate to the game's title, thus highly unlikely to be searched for. Delete as niche and unhelpful. Gaioa (T C L) 21:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Church of Martyrs[edit]

Retarget first or second (probably first). But I can hardly find anything even after extensive googling using "Church of Martyrs". --Northumber (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Lion of the Senate[edit]

The late Bob Dole has also been described as such. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep As far as I can tell, Bob Dole was referred to as a "lion of the Senate" in an obituary, but never before. Dole's bio does not include the word "lion". Ted Kennedy was referred to as the "Lion of the Senate" while he was still alive. There's at least one biography with it in the title, an exhibit with the title at the Edward M Kennedy Institute, and his bio page uses the nickname. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep for now the evidence provided appears to demonstrate that Kennedy is more associated with the term than Dole though if the in the future Dole starts to be regularly referred to as lion of the Senate we can create a dab page.-- (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Slovaks in Hungary (Giurtelecu Șimleului)[edit]

Non-sense. Giurtelecu Șimleului is in Romania, not in Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 12:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giurtelecu Șimleului was part of Hungary at multiple points in history. If the nomination was for a Hungary vs Romania discussion, the nomination can have more details. Also, there is a non-disambiguated redirect Slovaks in Hungary Giurtelecu Șimleului.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Pizza Day[edit]

Article contains no mention of Pizza Day. Serendipodous 12:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Growth, Subsection 2021. I had written a Pizza Day article several weeks back, and another editor -I forget whom- felt that its mention in a table on the Bitcoin article proper was sufficient. kencf0618 (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Mentioning the event that inspired Pizza Day is not the same thing as mentioning Pizza Day. What is Pizza Day? Is it actually observed? Serendipodous 14:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Implausible search term - yes there was an event where someone paid a few thousand Bitcoin for a slice of pizza in 2011, but I am not sure if this event even merits inclusion in the Bitcoin history article. Aasim (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Greatest Pianist of All Time[edit]

With all due respect to Glenn Gould, I don’t think it’s appropriate to redirect this lofty title to him and him only. A quick search will show that we also describe Vladimir Horowitz, Martha Argerich, Arthur Rubinstein, and Sviatoslav Richter as considered or regarded among the greatest pianists of all time (whereas the Gould introduction limits its praise to “of the 20th century” in the current revision). I haven’t been able to find a more appropriate redirect target – there are lists of pianists, but nothing comparable to e.g. list of films considered the best, apparently. Maybe the redirect should just be deleted? Galaktos (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: Vague title at best, unambiguous promotion at worst. Aasim (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    And... I tagged it for speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion. Aasim (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not speedy: It's a silly redirect, but given that Glen Gould has been dead for 40 years, it's hard for me to see unambiguous promotion here. Also letting this go through the process makes it easier to delete if it's recreated.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Raines Rules[edit]

This redirect is not linked anywhere on the English Wikipedia and consists of a grammatical error. An identical redirect page with an apostrophe (Raines' Rules) was created at the same time as this one; apostrophe has nearly 2000 views and is linked at Franklin Raines, while this one has 45 views. Andrew11374265 (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. -- Mdd (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see this as a plausible misnomer, especially since searching on mobile you do not have easy access to the apostrophe in most cases. Aasim (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Monkey vs. scopes trial[edit]

This does not seem to be a legitimate name for the subject - Scopes was not going against the monkeys. Hog Farm Talk 06:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I'm split on this one. It is commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial so I could conceivably see someone misconstruing that as Scopes v. Monkey or I guess this version of it, which is Monkey vs. Scopes. I wouldn't have created this redirect on my own, but I understand how it came to be and I guess this could be a {{R from incorrect name}}. The page history shows that this was originally a poorly written duplicate of Scopes Trial before it became a redirect, which makes me think that this misnomer is at least plausible, even if uncommon. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete seems to be misleading. It's probably not a good idea to compare The State of Tennessee to monkeys. --Lenticel (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Culture of Missouri[edit]

Wouldn't Missouri#Culture be a better target? Hog Farm Talk 06:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Missouri#Culture is probably substantial enough to break out as a separate article at the title under discussion, also incorporating the content of the current redirect target. BD2412 T 06:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missouri#Culture. Creating an article over the title is not really a questions for RfD. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Oiyarbepsy: I disagree, and I've resolved discussions that way more than once. BD2412 T 00:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missouri#Culture - Missouri article has more information about the state's culture than the Culture of the Southern United States article. — Golden call me maybe? 10:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this should hatnote the Missouri tribe and their culture -- (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is not clear if BD2412 was supporting or opposing the retarget, or only suggesting to replace the redirect with content incorporated from Missouri#Culture and Culture of the Southern United States#Missouri.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Missouri#Culture as a more appropriate redirect target. If there is interest in creating an article at this page, there can subsequently be a WP:SPLIT discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

V discography[edit]

Delete overly ambiguous. Multiple topics at V (disambiguation) have published discs -- (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I count three people at V (disambiguation) who have articles with a discography section. Obviously an editor who bothers to search for the phrase "V discography" is not looking for all non-discography-related topics under the title, "V", so create a page limited to the likely targets of such a search. BD2412 T 06:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • There are 3 people, a band, DVD/BR/VHS releases for 2 TV shows that could be considered to have discographies. -- (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or Redirect to V (disambiguation) as with multiple people and bands going by the name. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 23:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Tau Epsilon Chi[edit]

No indication why greek letters would be used to refer to a typesetting system Naraht (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Leaning keep, the target article states The letters of the name are meant to represent the capital Greek letters tau, epsilon, and chi which would be the connection; Google suggests that there's a couple NN fraternities/sororities known by this name, but the typesetting system appears to be the most common meaning based on my searches. Hog Farm Talk 07:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hog Farm's reasoning. This is something every TeX user learns. Should the fraternities/sororities become notable, a hatnote or a disambiguation page would be warranted. But for now TeX the program seems the dominant target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Slick Rick (radio)[edit]

I just went through a bunch of redirects that pointed there and out of them all there were two where the person was not included at the new target (CNN Philippines#Hosts and News Anchors) so I would like to propose these two as they are not even in the list that the other redirects are now pointing to. Also this one was already approved for a speedy delete in the past Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Jinno Rufino[edit]

See above except the last sentence Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Steamboat Arabia[edit]

Suggest retargeting to Arabia (steamboat) as the boat itself seems to be the more likely target for this phrasing. Hog Farm Talk 05:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Woredas of Ethiopia[edit]

Unused template redirect Platonk (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep they are woredas, thus useful in determining which template one is looking for. -- (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Subdivisions of Ethiopia[edit]

Unused template redirect. Platonk (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete does not cover all subdivisions of Ethiopia -- (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


Retarget to Zyklon (disambiguation). It may be referred to Zyklon A, Zyklon B, rather than Hydrogen cyanide. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:5562:3537:93F8:26B (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


Implausible redirect. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:5562:3537:93F8:26B (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: it's listed in the article as a synonym, which agrees with the pubchem entry for this substance, and I see this synonym notes in a variety of US and state documents. DMacks (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: There is nothing to suggest this is an implausible redirect. There needs to be explanation as to why the title is implausible. Aasim (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per DMacks. Seems like a perfectly reasonable redirect when the main article's infobox specifically lists it as an alternate name. --Zander251 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

List of talles structures in Kosovo[edit]

Leftover from page move, existed for two minutes, implausible typo MB 00:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: We are not here to redirect every single typo or misnomer to their subject articles; search does that already through "did you mean" headers. Aasim (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect would not even exist in the first place if the target article had been created with the correct title to begin with, and on the off chance that someone actually did search for this redirect's exact title, it is close enough to the real article's title that the search menu will find that article anyways. --Zander251 (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

December 5[edit]

Biosciences (disambiguation)[edit]

Other than the primary topic (biology), none of the articles linked from the target is known by this name. "Biosciences" isn't an ambiguous term (I PRODded the disambiguation page previously at this title last year). As such, I can't see any circumstances in which this redirect would be useful to a reader, and my inquiry at the creator's talk page hasn't clarified matters (though I appreciate the quick replies). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: This title did spike in usage in mid-2017, suggesting this is a plausible search term. Aasim (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I've no idea what caused that spike, but that was at a time when there was a disambiguation page at this location (which was linked from biology (disambiguation) and possibly other pages), so it doesn't tell us anything about the usefulness of this redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Great Britain (кingdom)[edit]

Delete for having a stray Cyrillic letter. Dissident (Talk) 17:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The к instead K makes it an incredibly implausible search term. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 18:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Snood. The redirect might fall afoul of WP:RFOREIGN as well, even though the letters sound pretty much aliкe, as I doubt people will search for the target with a mixture of the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, much less in the disambiguator. Regards, SONIC678 20:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Implausible search term. We are an English-language wiki, after all. Aasim (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wide Waters[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search doesn't suggest any connection. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete it is probably a reference to Wide Waters/Widewater Canal Park but that's likely not notable enough for an article on its own and it's not mentioned in the Erie Canal article. There are some mentions of it as "Widewaters" in news articles, but it does not seem like a particularly notable portion of the Erie Canal and as it's not currently in the article there's no logic in retargeting there. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 18:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Delete, Dellafuente and Mala Rodríguez are different people. Erinius (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. I'm well aware they're different people. Dellafuente collaborated with Rodríguez and is mentioned at her article. Ss112 09:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The article on Mala Rodriguez really doesn't have much information on him. New Flamenco has a paragraph on him, so maybe Dellafuente could point to that article instead. Erinius (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


Lupa does not disambiguate the term "Lupae". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne[edit]

Dubious redirect, extremely unlikely to be used by actual readers (who are likely to search for either the incipit or the more descriptive title), which was used only as a dubious way of not putting a piped link in the list of compositions by the composer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Harmless {{R from move}}, WP:RFD#KEEP#4 seems to apply. —Kusma (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    Except there is no incoming link (I've cleaned up what little there was, and if someone somehow willingly linked to this in an edit summary (I'd be surprised), they still wouldn't have difficulty actually finding the thing, ...) and this is otherwise not a useful redirect, as it is quite unlikely someone would link to the target article using this, and as a search term it is clearly useless as readers are likely to come upon the actual thing they're looking for using a much shorter query, and even if somehow they do search for something like it (ex. here) the correct article is already the very first thing on top... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    Keep, harmless, and deleting it would break the links in years of old versions of the articles you just fixed for too little gain. —Kusma (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    "it would break the links in years of old versions of the articles" actually, it wouldn't, as the only significant use of this was in the navbox footer template (and of course, even when viewing an old version of an article, you see the current version of the template....). Outside of this idiosyncratic use, I only found two isolated examples ([1]; [2]). Red links in old versions of articles are not really a problem (for one, the kind of people looking at that would surely know how to find the correct article; doubly so since it is the first thing that would appear on top of their search anyway) Redirects might be cheap, but this one is just so fundamentally useless (and in addition might give bad ideas for creating other similar ones) that there's no point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as an R from move, specifically this was the original title of the article. A7V2 (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    This was moved from it's original title within 6 days of being created ([3]). There's nothing to be broken, and it's otherwise useless as a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with RandomCanadian. This is clearly a case where keeping a redir after a move serves no actual purpose. This is just pointless clutter. Cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, old links sure do exist... J947messageedits 22:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    @J947: That is surely because it was used in the Handel navbox template (which is now corrected, so even in old versions of articles there shouldn't be a problem). I'll re-iterate that the article was at this original title for a grand total of only 6 days... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry about that, should've read further through the RfD. So it's a used alternative name then? Good to know. And it is used. Why else would the creator create it? [4] [5]. Additionally, those pageviews may not all be from the navbox; 6 days is enough time for old external links to accrue, so I'd be wary of deleting it. Anyhow, I'm not sure how needlessly changing links, and creating an RfD serves to eliminate "clutter". If anything, it creates it. J947messageedits 23:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    It's not a "used alternative name". It's a composite of the incipit (i.e. Psalm 118:24) and of the usual designation for this (both of which can be used individually, but I have never seen them together in this fashion), which was apparently only used by the creator of this back in 2014 (and which was not updated in the template when the article was moved). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    It is a used alternative name, as the links show. The fact that it isn't especially common in format or usage does not change that. It isn't immediately clear anyhow that it is two phases combined, and it is entirely reasonable that upon seeing it, the reader would search it up and be helped by this redirect to find their way to the article. I don't see why we should inconvenience those readers. J947messageedits 00:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    "It isn't immediately clear" - "This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne"... I've told you where the usage comes from: it's not the search engine, it was merely usage in a (one!) template... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    It's a small word sandwiched between more small words. The purpose of so many redirects is to factor in for people's misnomers. I don't see how this one is different. J947messageedits 01:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Desperately implausible search term, and I agree that it muddies the waters concerning the Biblical verse. "Inconveniencing the readers?" What readers? Ravenswing 02:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another heated discussion with no clear outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and others. Should have never existed, and will never be used. Aza24 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Certainly not wrong, harmless, gets around 10 pageviews a month. What's the value in deletion? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    22:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Too specific a target, as this is also the bullet diameter of the .44 Special and .44 Russian. Could be retargeted to .44 or 10 mm caliber, but these include entries with different bullet sizes. Given that this measurement could refer to things besides bullet diameter, and the correct 10.9 mm doesn't exist, I favor deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Repoint to 11 mm caliber, and convert .44 into a redirect to 11 mm caliber. They are listed at 11mm, and 10.9 is about 11mm, since engineering tolerances are not that tight. -- (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

10 gauge[edit]

I propose that the shotgun size is the primary topic for these and should all target Gauge (firearms)#Gauges in use, but they have been retargeted to the disambiguation page in the past. The disambigution page does not directly disambiguate the different sizes to which this could refer, so sending searchers seeking other info in other contexts there is not ideal. An intermediate step would be to create a dab page for each size, as with 12 gauge, but other uses besides measurements are disambiguated there. In contrast, while I haven't formally included them here, the redirects 6 Gauge, 8 gauge, and 20 gauge point directly to the articles about that size of shotgun, and the larger sizes 2 gauge and 3 gauge point directly to the content about railroad track size, with 2 gauge being an article. No disambiguation seems to exist for these other gauge numbers, so it may be that we don't need to disambiguate specific gauges. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't think that firearms gauge is that much more primary that wire gauge. I would hazard that wire gauges are much more commonly used, since electricians do more work than people firing guns. -- (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Disambiguate all of them , rail gauge, wire gauge, gun gauge -- (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

45 caliber[edit]

These should all probably target the same place. Should they be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs for .45 ACP, or target the list page? If targeting .45 ACP, the hatnote should be edited to include a link to the 11 mm caliber list. Another common meaning is .45 Colt, which is currently a hatnote. There is the Colt 45 page that disambiguates between these two meanings, so retargeting there could also be considered (I have added a "See also" to the 11 mm page there). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I suggest that they all target 11 mm caliber, since multiple cartridges have .45 in the name. There's no reason to focus on just one as a redirect target. Hellbus (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment .45 ACP is called ".45 ACP", retarget to 11mm per Hellbus -- (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are 3 suggested targets. Both comments so far were unclear to me. IP 65's unquoted vs quoted comment, as well as Hellbus' suggestion to retarget all to 11 mm, and seemingly contradicting it by saying that we need not look at a single target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Wrong venue

December 4[edit]

The Divine Ponytail (film)[edit]

Redirect of a title of a film that no longer appears to be in production and is not mentioned in target article BOVINEBOY2008 21:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is confusing without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Uncle Crimbo[edit]

The target article says nothing about Uncle Crimbo and has been tagged as such for several years. Is the term so minimally important that it does not merit mention in the Christmas article? Or is it sufficiently important to have its own standalone article? I am agnostic as to what exactly happens; I bring it here merely because the redirect is currently failing to provide any useful information to readers. Chubbles (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: It is worthy of note that this redirect was created 13 years ago by one DrMcCrimbo. Possibly a hoax. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    @NotReallySoroka: That it may be a hoax was my first thought as well, for the exact same reasons, but a quick search seemed to indicate it is a slang term for Christmas. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: You are correct, thank you. However, it remains questionable whether this is commonplace enough. For reference, at the Crimbo page, there is a "dubious - discuss" next to the entry for "Uncle Crimbo". --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Uncle Crimbo is a Kingdom of Loathing character. I don't know if the term has other uses or not. - Eureka Lott 21:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, i should amend my previous comment, it is clear that "crimbo" is a slang expression for Christmas. The "uncle" part is another story. Perhaps a retarget to the KoL article? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as obscure synonym at best. He also seems to be a minor character in KoL. I found an article for KoL Crimbo but not Uncle Crimbo. --Lenticel (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn


Not sure why specifically these two numbers were used; this does not seem to be described at the target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
17:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It used to be in the article [6]. It was added by the same editor (User:Jojan) who created the redirect. SpinningSpark 18:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Even with a mention, the numbers selected in the example are arbitrary. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I do not remember why I created those redirects in 2007 (as well as X=Y); if it was something I searched for, had heard about, or just stumbled upon. I would not mind them being removed. Jojan (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both as implausible search terms. Even if these were still mentioned in the article, redirects to them are inappropriate unless these specific terms had notable significance that was described there, which I don't believe is the case. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both as implausible search terms. Jojan (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing. --Lenticel (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per above Aasim (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


"x=y" is not a mathematical fallacy. Not described at target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
17:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. As above, this used to be in the article [7] at one time. That is, a (fallacious) proof is provided for any real values of x and y. SpinningSpark 18:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. Jojan (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fail to see the connection, thus is implausible target. Aasim (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Convolution (formal languages)[edit]

Though the term "convolution" is used in various ways in formal language theory, it is not what is discussed in the article formerly known as Convolution (computer science) (now Zipping (computer science)). No other page points to this page. Macrakis (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I generated the redirect on 5 Jan 2014, along with Local language (formal languages), Alternation (formal languages), Normal form (formal languages), Interpretation (formal languages), String (formal languages), Symbol (formal languages), Syntax (formal languages), Production (formal languages), apparently to provide a unique parenthetical suffix "(formal languages)". However, I'm unable to reconstruct where I found, in 2014, "convolution" on a formal language page. Therefore, I won't object to the deletion of this redirect. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Convolution used to be in the article [8], bolded in the lead no less, and was actually the article title at that time. It was removed in this recent edit. SpinningSpark 18:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it because I could find no evidence in the literature of its being used to mean this. As I say, "convolution" has other meanings in formal language theory, but as far as I can tell, we don't have any articles on those other meanings. --Macrakis (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, per my comment above. If a use for a redirect "Convolution (formal languages)" is (re)discovered lateron, it is easy to re-create the redirect. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage - Atlanta[edit]

Coldwell Banker is a very large real estate company with over 400 regional offices. I'm not seeing why this one particular office has its own redirect except that somebody with an obvious COI tried to write an article about it as one of four edits they made with their account a decade ago. Their other attempt to write an article about an individual office was rightly deleted at the time, while this one was converted to a redirtect. There are no incoming links, got two pageviews in the past month. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Stephanie sarkis[edit]

Delete This is an unused (12 views in a year) and unlikely capitalization error Redirect to "Stephanie Moulton Sarkis". Note, a "Stephanie Sarkis" redirect already exists.Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: per nom NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as a harmless {{r from miscapitalization}}. We don't advise creating redirects like this, but since it's been here since 2012, it may have accumulated external links and deleting it is potentially harmful. - Eureka Lott 21:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no reason to delete: this capitalisation is not unlikely. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The Last Paradise (film)[edit]

Redirect of a title that was once in production, but is no longer mentioned in the article of future films BOVINEBOY2008 16:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

First night[edit]

Most results for this term on GScholar are about first nights in psychiatric care or Prima nocta, in an internet search it's primarily events titled "First night" and miscellaneous results. I would lean towards deletion to allow for search results. signed, Rosguill talk 15:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No waiting[edit]

One does not equal the other, no mention of "no waiting zones" at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. "No waiting" is a synonym of "no stopping", so on those grounds, the article does cover it (although not very well) since it depicts the sign for the latter. In any case, this is a helpful redirect as it points to the most relevant article we have. SpinningSpark 16:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    No waiting could also refer to any immediate process. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete far too vague, too many possible meanings. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. "No waiting" in common use means "No Parking": in fact the sign commonly known as "No parking" (as depicted in the article) is actually defined in UK as "No waiting" [9]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete there is "no stopping" and "no parking" for traffic control; -- "no waiting" is for not needing to wait in line. -- (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, but consider improving target article to reflect parking and waiting restrictions, not just violations. The UK Highway Code uses the term "waiting" as something distinct from "parking" or "stopping", as here re yellow lines. PamD 07:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Macedonians (Armans/Aromanians/Vlachs)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea[edit]

There is a special wikidata entry for 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea. Thus at some point a separate article can be written on this topic, see interwiki. But for now all these links should redirect somewhere. And obviously the target should be the same. Therefore I propose to discuss here which target is better and to refine all redirects to this target. And maybe also use {{R avoided double redirect|2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea}}? --Northumber (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Side story[edit]

Not sure what target is better. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - Perhaps subplot would be a more fitting target for the concept at hand. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget To subplot, per Godsy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old can be used instead, and the parser function {{#time:}} breaks the redirect. Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. As a soft redirect, it's still a better shortcut than clicking through to WP:AFDO. If there is some technical reason why that is harmful, then altering the redirect is still better than deletion. czar 19:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as a broken shortcut redirect that can't actually function as a redirect due to technical limitations in the mediawiki software, and which only gets updated when the page is edited or purged (at the moment it's pointing to the 14th instead of the 18th). If you need an automatically updating link to discussions from 8 days ago use [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/{{#time:Y F j|-8days}}]] to make a direct link instead. 0 incoming links that aren't related to this discussion, so it never seems to have been used anywhere and so deletion shouldn't break anything. On a procedural note this discussion should probably have been at WP:RFD instead of here. (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Definitely should have been listed at RfD—did not notice that when I relisted this because I found this case so distractingly interesting. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, although I wouldn't really object to just deleting it. This doesn't work as explained above, and the AFDOLD page adequately fulfills its intended function. Although this shortcut doesn't seem to be getting much use, retargeting it to the AFDOLD page would be nominally preferable as an alternative to deletion, I suppose. (A sidenote: couldn't this have just been left alone? Surely it wasn't doing any harm.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • @Qwerfjkl, Czar, and Extraordinary Writ: I have relisted this once more, but in the proper venue as to potentially solicit more input at a forum that is more appropriate for such matters. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • A reminder that incoming links is not the only indication of "use". I use this shortcut several times a week without linking it from anywhere. czar 10:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Prior to being listed at MFD it had recieved 7 page views in the last 12 months. [10] (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I use it in conjunction with WP:AFD7 but my point still stands. That there is a technical limitation on how Mediawiki soft redirects rather than automatically redirects does not impair its function as a shortcut straight to the two AfD lists in highest need of admin closure. czar 17:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Czar is using it and finds it useful, that in itself is a good reason to keep it and there is absolutely no positive reason for deleting it. It might not see much use, but there is no benefit in making any editor's work harder. SpinningSpark 19:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Cyanide gas[edit]

Retarget to Cyanide, as gaseous cyanide compounds do not simply referred to hydrogen cyanide, but also cyanogen chloride, cyanogen fluoride and many others. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:594A:1C88:144B:4D8A (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No agreement on whether this should be kept or retargeted to one of the options presented by both IPs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Based on a straightforward WHOIS and WP:DUCK, the above comment appears to be a meatpuppet of the nom; both IPs geolocate to the same area in eastern Thailand and have the same ISP and /64. No checkuser required. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 23:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • It's surely the same guy commenting on his own nomination. Which is perfectly fine as long as that fact is acknowledged. J947messageedits 23:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering that the second IP's comment is not really a vote, and keeping the meatpuppet angle aside, do we look at the alternate targets, or is the current one the best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per primary use. SpinningSpark 19:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote. There are many forms of cyanides that sometimes also called as "cyanide gas". 2405:9800:BA31:F6:5562:3537:93F8:26B (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment if Dioxin gas2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin is created. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:5562:3537:93F8:26B (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as primarytopic, based on actual usage not nominator's wish that English be consistent. OTHERCRAPEXISTS/DOESNTEXIST is a poor argument. Here we're talking about one redirect and how to make WP better for it. DMacks (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as the main topic for the redirect. Those other things mentioned are derivatives and can be followed up from the main target article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


Since 4'-chloro-2-hydroxyaurone is redlinked next to the mention of this formula at the target, these should be deleted to encourage article creation as well. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
20:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment there is also C15H9O2Cl that redirects to the same target and is similarly associated with a red link for the compound name, so should probably be treated the same and could be bundled here. I am not sure if any particular aurone is notable enough to have its own article, so I wonder if it would be better to keep these redirects, create redirects for the compound names currently redlinked at the target, and then de-link all at the target? There is a bit of useful information with a ref or two for these compounds, so bringing searchers there might be appropriate, since we are unlikely to have articles on these anytime soon. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we redlink all or create redirects for the redlinks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. The suggestion of creating redirects to redlinks is directly against guidelines per WP:REDNO (Jay, is that really what you meant). I'm not seeing the argument that this will help article creation. Anyone following these redirects lands on a page where the potential article title is redlinked, so if they are inclined to create an article, they can still get there. Plus the reader is taken to a page where there is useful information. SpinningSpark 19:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as a potentially useful redirect. There is no reason to encourage creation of articles of chemical formulas, as the name of the chemical should be used as the title. Chemical formula pages can be redirects or set indexes. Most likely these will later become set indexes as there would be more than one thing with those formulae. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

December 3[edit]


This article has been retargeted to Iso (disambiguation) and International Organization for Standardization several times over the years so I would like to gather consensus for one of these targets. My opinion is that it should be the disambiguation page per WP:SMALLDETAILS - nobody is referring to the ISO in lowercase, and iso in lowercase can refer to many unrelated things. eviolite (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Target the disambiguation page clearly "iso" means many things, including "same", isomers, etc. -- (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to ISO (disambiguation), definitely. The term doesn't even refer to the International Organization for Standardization when in lowercase, so having it point there makes no sense. - Preceding signed comment added by Evil Sith Lord (talkcontribs) 03:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to disambiguation, ambiguous when not capitalized. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to ISO (disambiguation) where several "Iso" targets are found. --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths[edit]

delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep because it's obvious the term is in the article without even looking at the article. Seems like a frivolous nomination... Huggums537 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak delete while it is a subheading in the article, it's not a likely search term and subheadings do not inherently need to have redirects. My largest hesitation is if there are incoming links because this redirect has existed for 10 years. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 02:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Indifference to others' suffering[edit]

delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete or find another home for it. It doesn't necessarily refer to psychopathy and is not always permanent. It may also refer to apathy, desensitization, or caring very little for or not at all when the other's suffering concerns someone the person strongly dislikes or hates. It's also not as popular a search term as something like "psychopathy", "sociopathy", "apathy", and from there onward. It's not even a term. GBFEE (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep because it does necessarily and specifically refer [relate] to psychopathy [Empathy#Psychopathy]. General apathy and desensitization could refer to almost anything, while this term specifically refers [relates] to indifference to the suffering of others, which is directly and specifically related to psychopathy [Empathy#Psychopathy]. (In other words, the redirect isn't talking about general indifference, but the specific indifference to the suffering of others...) Huggums537 (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Huggums537, would you provide academic resources stating very clearly that "indifference to others' suffering" does necessarily and specifically refer to psychopathy? You make this assertion, and yet even searching the term shows that it does not. Over my lifetime, I have witnessed the term used to refer to sociopathy, apathy, desensitization, and from there onward in addition to psychopathy. It is also worth mentioning that there is no psychiatric or psychological diagnosis called "psychopathy". If not apparent, I'm asking for resources that say what you've claimed here, not for resources that say psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder involves or includes indifference to others' suffering, or that psychopaths are indifferent to others' suffering. GBFEE (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Empathy is a range, a continuum. Some people have it more than others (as not everyone falls under the "empath" category), and different things can lead people to being indifferent to others' suffering, though usually not permanently. If you are so certain that "indifference to others' suffering" does necessarily and specifically refer to psychopathy, then why don't you propose to have the term redirect to the psychopathy article and expand on it there with appropriate resources? GBFEE (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
1) I'm not adding any material to an article, so I'm not required to provide a source for any claims you think I have made. However, I will indulge you this time, but I will ignore your demand for the sources to be strictly academic as I will also ignore your demand to exclude any sources showing they are related because my claim can and will be easily modified to support the idea I had behind it: [11], [12], [13], [14], just to name a few. 2) Just because you searched Google for a very general term and it didn't produce a very specific result doesn't prove anything. 3) You contradict yourself because before you said the redirect is "...not even a term", and now you say over your lifetime you have seen it used to refer to many things even " addition to psychopathy". 4) If you are so certain that "indifference to others' suffering" does necessarily and specifically refer to psychopathy, then why don't you propose to have the term redirect to the psychopathy article and expand on it there with appropriate resources? Because I'm not saying the term is ball and chained to psychopathy. That would be unreasonable. Of course indifference to the suffering of others is something anyone could experience absent of any psychopathy, because like you said, empathy is a range some have more than others temporarily, but that isn't the point. The point is that indifference to the suffering of others is not something anyone can experience without being tied ball and chain to specifically the Empathy article, and the best place to target it to is the psychopathy section. Huggums537 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you think Empathy#Practical_issues would be a better fit? Huggums537 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Huggums537, I reject you saying I made a demand. It's not a demand to ask if you would provide academic resources supporting what you say. None of those resources support what you originally said, which is that "indifference to others' suffering" does necessarily and specifically refer to psychopathy. If you remember, I said I'm asking for resources that say what you've claimed here, not for resources that say psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder involves or includes indifference to others' suffering, or that psychopaths are indifferent to others' suffering. You altered what you said and are now arguing "relates to", which is not what I argued against. I named different topics, including psychopathy, that relate to indifference to others' suffering. Academic resources are important for medical topics. Academic resources for academic topics is natural and should be your preference when searching for resources to support things pertaining to those topics. So random resources like and aren't sufficient. This isn't about searching Google for a very general term and it not producing a very specific result. Searching the term does, however, corroborate what I've said. I didn't contradict myself by saying "yet even searching the term." It still isn't technically a term. But when the proposal to delete it and the person you're arguing with about it are referring to it as a term, it's natural to also do so in the same discussion. I can refer to it as a phrase, if you'd like, which I did think about doing. You made an argument that essentially said Empathy#Psychopathy is the primary topic for indifference to others' suffering. I disagree with that. If the redirect is kept or deleted, I won't care. I saw the listing from Talk:Empathy and chose to comment, offering my knowledge. The community can decide what they want on this, and I'll lose no sleep over it. GBFEE (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. And, if you want me to be wrong about what I originally stated, then that's fine too. The only thing I need to prove is that the term is closely related enough to Empathy#Psychopathy for us to keep it, and I think the sources I provided have done that. Huggums537 (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ian Hawke[edit]

The target article when using ctrl-f does not have any reference to the name Ian Hawke, Ian, or Hawke. Not really sure why the redirect exists. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that's a better retarget than the one I initially proposed. I'll strike my target and endorse yours. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


This redirect should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Redirecting to a primary topic. Wikipedia:Public transport receives little page views, as opposed to the primary topic redirect doctrine, which is quite often referred to. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - WP:RPT could serve as an alternative. WP:PTR only has eight extant links locally, and the suggested target is certainly of more prominence. However, it has been as it is since 2009. Too hesitant to support, but not enough to oppose. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

PKP Pecheneg[edit]

Proposing deletion of this redirect, so that the article can be moved to this title, as the fact it is the PKP Pecheneg, not just the Pecheneg, means that specifying it is the PKP Pecheneg machine gun is unnecessary - there is no other PKP Pecheneg that it needs to be distinguished from. Loafiewa (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


I think this redirect was made by accident and should be deleted. The original link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Your_new_project can be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Create_a_project_page. Ruthgrace (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: per nom NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: Utterly implausible title. Aasim (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Unnumbered minor planets[edit]

Someone searching for this is probably more likely to be looking for Category:Minor planet object articles (unnumbered), since the current target contains minor planets that have since been assigned numbers. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


Unlikely typo, not mentioned in the target. It is a misspelling (for naïveté), but I do not think a very common one. From my experience, it certainly is not a common mispelling in French (and fr:Naïvité is a redlink rather than a redirect for what it’s worth). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete It has had only 13 page views in a year.Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks like a typo that neither a French speaker nor a non-French speaker would make. Spidermario (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. A redirect of this misspelling (of a word right up there in the lead) has been used and is therefore helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Troom Troom[edit]

I don't think that this redirect is particularly helpful. Troom Troom is a different channel from 5 minute crafts, and is run by a different company. There is no mention of Troom Troom in the target article. (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This article makes it quite clear Troom Troom is not related to 5 minute crafts Zeon says Troom Troom is independently owned [...] I was easily able to find detailed Facebook and LinkedIn accounts that matched the name on his later emails, which leads me to believe that Zeon is, indeed, a real person. and The origins of 5-Minute Crafts are, for what it’s worth, far less mysterious. 5-Minute Crafts is owned by TheSoul Publishing. It seems like if Troom Troom were owned by TheSoul it would be less hard to find. Deletion also will allow for article creation if Troom Troom achieves notability, but it does not work as a redirect. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 02:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wolf (upcoming film)[edit]

Stale and ambiguous. Nardog (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep the first one for now (it's still getting A LOT of pageviews, like over 900 last month), and wait for 2022 (possibly beyond) to see if these view are going down. Weak delete the second one, which isn't used as much as it was May 28-29 this year, as it will eventually come to an end and render that one obsolete. Regards, SONIC678 15:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first one to Wolf (disambiguation) per the views incoming, and delete the second one. -- (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Zana massacre[edit]

Nothing links to here. No edit history other than the creation by a now-blocked spamming sockpuppet. No reason to keep. Platonk (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Adi’Zeban Karagiorgis massacre[edit]

Nothing links to here. No edit history other than the creation by a now-blocked spamming sockpuppet. No reason to keep. Platonk (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Dekera massacre[edit]

Nothing links to here. No edit history other than the creation by a now-blocked spamming sockpuppet. No reason to keep. Platonk (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

MediaTek Camera Application[edit]

Delete or change to appropriate target (if it exists) as it is not mentioned at all at the target page (target page basically only talks about the company in terms of its CPU manufacturing) ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

F. W.[edit]

I think this page should redirect to FW, which seems to be a more suitable target for people wikilinking to "F.W." It would also make it possible to remove the hatnote at F. W. de Klerk, thereby making the page cleaner. JBchrch talk 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. F. W. de Klerk is the only notable topic that appears on the first four pages of google searches for "F. W.", making them unquestionably the primary topic. Removing hatnotes is not something that should ever be a goal it its own right. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I do not get the same results at all. The majority of my results are related to F.W. Webb Company. And I think it's pretty clear from my proposal that I do not regard removing hat notes as a "goal it its own right"... JBchrch talk 19:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Interesting, F.W. Webb Company doesn't appear in my search results until the penultimate spot on page 10, well below plumbers, builders merchants, a funeral home in Great Malvern (I'm in London, a little over a 100 miles away as the crow flies), dictionary definitions, stone masons, serial numbers (for dishwashers, disco lights, "sensor heads" and inkjet printers), even the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Hits related to F.W. de Klerk are in the majority of every page (except 1 and 7, where no one thing is in a majority). Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page. Anything abbreviated "FW" is pendantically spelled as "F. W." if you follow traditional grammar rules -- (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget per above. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget per above. Incidentally, in my own DuckDuckGo search, the only notable results on the first page are Wikipedia pages for Dwight D. Eisenhower and Franklin D. Roosevelt (why? no idea). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget too ambiguous for a redirect. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to FW: I started an RfD over "H. W.", which was created by the same user as this redirect. I think that, much like how H. W. is now redirected to HW instead of George H. W. Bush, this redirect should cease pointing to F. W. de Klerk. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

William Taylor(Nights: Journey of Dreams)[edit]

Back when Will had an article in June-July 2008, the page was at this title for nearly a month before it was moved to the correctly formatted title, then that was redirected to the current target less than a week later. I don't really see why we should keep this WP:UNNATURALly formatted title that isn't used much when the correct one exists. Regards, SONIC678 00:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


This redirect needs to be deleted, entirely my fault, i meant to merge, and for some reason, i moved it, so i moved it back, and now tivetshall redirects to tivetshall st margaret, when the two tivetshalls really should be merged, sorry for wasting your time. Erik Sergeant (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  • It should be an article about the civil parish that was formed from Tivetshall St Margaret and Tivetshall St Mary in 2019 but I'm fine with deleting so that it shows up as a red link. Prior to the CP formed it could have perhaps have been a set index listing the 2 villages and Tivetshall railway station but now that a CP exists with that name an article would be more appropriate. The 2 village/former CP articles shouldn't be merged as defunct divisions remain notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps use it as a disambiguation page, leading to both articles. Erik Sergeant (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Convert to article. Draft provided. Deletion would be unhelpful and create unnecessary redlinks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, I've expanded it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Question Team[edit]

Per "redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject", the Richard Ayoade article only mentions Question Team in a table row, where it says that it's the name of a television show that he hosted for 8 episodes in 2021. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2[edit]

Southeast Michigan Outbreak[edit]

Currently redirects to 1997 southeast Michigan tornado outbreak, but lacks specificity -- outbreak of what? Chicken pox? COVID-19? Auto manufacturing? Existentialism? This is by no means the only outbreak that's ever happened in southeast Michigan. jp×g 20:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There should be no ambiguity whatsoever on the topic. The topic name should specify that it's a tornado outbreak. RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


In addition to current target (dab), this has redirected to Nyungar language, Minangkabau language, Minangkabau people and was always changed without discussion. From the most recent change/edit summary, the dab may not have been intended. I'm making no recommendation myself. MB 20:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Dabify to at least Minangkabau people (also known as Minang), Mineng (also known as Minang) and Padang cuisine (which is also known as Minang cuisine). I might have missed some plausible targets. --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


Umbridae only contains three of the seven extant species of mudminnow. Muskellungelounge (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added the plural here to be considered together. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Zero-level projection[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, GScholar suggests this phrase is common across many disciplines, not just linguistics. Delete unless justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Head (linguistics)#X-bar trees has the description "It is head-initial insofar as the head X0 precedes its complement...", and "X0" and "zero-level projection" stand for exactly the same thing. Google Scholar - "zero-level projection" gives us many hits, and everything but the first ("Atomic resolution blahblah") is on linguistics. I don't believe this is enough for one to consider the term cross-disciplinary (although I wouldn't disagree if someone familiar with math disambiguates it). Google Scholar - "zero-level category" has even more hits (note that "ZL category" is terminologically more neutral than "ZL projection" because the latter is obsolete as the X-bar theory, from which it originates, has itself been replaced by the Minimalist program.) --Dragoniez (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Library of Congress Authorities[edit]

This redirect was deleted in 2016 via Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21#Library_of_Congress_Authorities, and re-created in 2019. All of the same rationales for deletion still apply to the replacement redirect. Chubbles (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Astley's Ampitheatre[edit]

deletion as its a misspelling that has been there for a long time, there is already a disambig set up today Financefactz (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


This is a Hindi word, not mentioned at target. Apparently, its usage is controversial. There were three articles using the redirect, which I have reworded. There are other unlinked uses which should probably be reworded as well, but searching is complicated by people with this as a given name. As far as a better target, Disability in India#Government policy discusses the term specifically. MB 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan[edit]

Disambiguate between Afghanistan, Taliban, and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001). Looking at the incoming links and disambiguation fix list, it is clear that redirecting to the modern state is not appropriate for a large number of the links out there. There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose disambiguation, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly refers to Afghanistan currently under Taliban rule. Taliban is the ruling organization, just as the Chinese Communist Party is the ruling organization for the People's Republic of China. Also using search as a metric for primary topic (and I did this in private browsing), and it seems that there certainly is one: islamic emirate of afghanistan - Bing islamic emirate of afghanistan - Google Search
There is a clear difference between the ruling party and what the party calls its government.
It is also worth mentioning that our title policy means we choose the most commonly searched title for a topic. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is not a commonly searched term (afghanistan, islamic emirate of afghanistan - Explore - Google Trends), but nonetheless refers to the new country and thus is a suitable redirect. It is even in the lead of the Afghanistan article. Aasim (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Have you even bothered to look through the incoming links? Before you reverted, I was going through the disambiguation fix list, and the vast majority of the incoming links were from older articles that were using the term "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" as distinct from Afghanistan as a country, to refer to the first Taliban state or the Taliban itself (which is called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and has been this whole time!). WP:DPT tells us to look at the incoming links in determining the primary topic, and that's what we should do. Look, I get there's an almost morbid interest editors have in making sure "Afghanistan" is made totally synonymous with "Taliban", but it's going too far. Yes, the Taliban is Afghanistan's government now, but we have a lot of historical content that treats it as a rebel group. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, the Taliban is not a political party. It is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. That is the group's name. "Taliban" is an exonym. Your analogy is incorrect. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep (modified from Keep at 01:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)) Afghanistan is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the hat notes are sufficient in my mind. It is similar to how French Republic redirects to France and not French Republics. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    This is not like other countries. We only recently started treating the Islamic Emirate as a government and not a terrorist organization. A lot of links are supposed to point to Taliban, which is an article about the organization and its history. There is relatively little coverage about the Taliban at Afghanistan because that article is about the country. What matters here is the incoming links and where they're supposed to point, and this redirect broke a lot of them. Editors are so eager to treat the Taliban as a government that they're ignoring the large amount of historical coverage we have treating them as a terrorist organization. That content hasn't disappeared. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere am I ignoring that the Taliban is a terrorist organization. My argument was not in any way related to that and does not hinge on that. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 22:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
My point is that there is a lot of more-relevant content at Taliban that we are ignoring by declaring the country article the primary topic. Please keep in mind that "Taliban" is an exonym and the organization's name is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand that the organization's name is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but it's called that quite infrequently in English compared to the use of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to refer to the nation under the control of the former. It is a truly regrettable situation, as it leads to much confusion. I do think that a redirect hat note for Taliban as well should be added to the page. It's a tough situation because I feel that your arguments all are based on correct information, but I also believe that it's unlikely someone will use that term to search for the Taliban. I'm trying to avoid making an argument from WP:NWFCTM because I feel like I'm approaching that. NGram is honestly not even useful here when it comes to something like WP:DPT because there is no real way to determine when someone searches for this term what they are intending to search for. I still !vote for keep, but I'll weaken it because your arguments are convincing. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 01:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
With regards to the incoming links, the hat note that shows the previous Islamic Emirate should be enough. While it's impossible to remedy all incoming links a hat note is a not terrible medium. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 22:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This is not about remedying "all incoming links". It is about the fact that Afghanistan is the wrong target for most of the links already out there; WP:DPT tells us to disambiguate in such a situation. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for Disambiguation The Taliban is not a political party or group, but rather it is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The State and Political/Armed Group articles are only separate because it is fits an encyclopedia better to have some distinction. Because of this, the 1996-2001 and 2021-present state articles should be considered to be of the same organization, even if separated by time. Support for Disambiguation between Taliban, Afghanistan, and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001). Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as is The base article has a history section. What is now Afghanistan, and major components thereof, has been an emirate several times, not just the two under the Taliban. -- (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I get your point and although I agree with it at face value, there are a lot of pages out there that are currently linking to the "Islamic Emirate of Aghanistan" with intent to have the reader redirected to the page for the country. Doing this would break all those links; Leading the reader to a disambiguation page instead of the page for the actual country, and there are tons of these pages that will be broken if this were to pass. Besides, at the very top of the Afghanistan page, there is already a "mini-disambiguation" to help out readers that may have been looking for something else when searching for "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". ThatDohDude (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Mechanisms[edit]

This is the name of a different, completely unrelated band from Mechanism, and all of the links using this redirect have been mistaken links from The Mechanisms rather than the target. I'd make an article for the real The Mechanisms, but while they have an enthusiastic cult following I'm not sure if they're notable by Wikipedia's standards. Rusalkii (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Heh, not a band I ever thought to see show up at RfD. I'm slightly biased here, perhaps, having quite liked the one album of theirs I listened to, Once Upon a Time in Space. But I think I can set that aside... /lh
    I see where IP65 is coming from, but I disagree. If they're notable enough to redlink, then they should be redlinked without disambiguator. Google results suggest (yes, even Incognito to avoid personalized results) that the main usage of "The Mechanisms" is in reference to the band, so this seems like it would be a WP:SMALLDETAILS situation, like Atlantic / The Atlantic. So either we should delete this per nom under REDLINK, or we should say that this band isn't notable and retarget to the DAB and unlink all backlinks. Looking at search results, I'm afraid I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but maybe I've missed something. Defaulting to retarget to DAB and un-backlink, but remain open to being convinced that there's article potential here (in which case I'd switch to !voting redlink). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
If as Rusalkii stated, it isn't sufficiently notable, then the base name should point to the dab page. The redlink can serve to point to whatever other article the band ever appears in as a subtopic, if such were written. As it is, we could just point it to the space pirates list, instead of being a redlink. Or keep it as a redlink, waiting for such a more substantial overarching article to be written. Surely there should be a list of bands of X where a listentry could be built for it? Then the redlink could be converted to a redirect to that list. -- (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as the disambiguation page does not cover any topic called "The Mechanisms". The band is mentioned only in passing in various articles which would not be good targets either (e.g. Hereward the wake). (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mechanism does not disambiguate "The Mechanisms". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Dindu Nuffin[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete as a clearly offensive or abusive term that is not in wide use. Dindu nuffin does not exist, so there is no reason to have the capitalized version which could be confused with the more unambiguous Dindu Nuffin (song). WP:RNEUTRAL specifies that an "established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources [to describe the article subject]" may be kept, which this is not. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Retarget to Doja Cat#Controversies per WP:DIFFCAPS; with hatnote. Create the dindu nuffin redirect, redirecting to this target. So it redirects to a page which explains it as a term. Similar to what mainstream media have done. It isn't used by mainstream media, but it is mentioned (use–mention distinction). And if all non-neutral redirects were required to be used by mainstream media, then the alt-right echo chamber would only develop as those encountering the term can not see it being described in a neutral manner on Wikipedia.
    In terms of wikilawyering about WP:RNEUTRAL, I don't see where to describe the article subject is implied in the sentence referenced in the nomination. Paraphrasing; the term is established, even if not in established sources, and perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. J947messageedits 20:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    The use–mention distinction is exactly the reason to delete. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms ... For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. This is what is meant by "used in multiple mainstream reliable sources".
    DIFFCAPS is largely irrelevant since Dindu Nuffin (song) already exists. Loss of this fringe term will not harm readers' ability to search for it in the encyclopedia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    There is encyclopedic information, referenced to reliable sources, right in the article. It makes zero sense to not have an unambiguous redirect that directs readers to information on the topic. Dindu Nuffin (song) is an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}; an {{R from avoided double redirect}} in regards to Dindu Nuffin. J947messageedits 20:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    The reason is given by WP:R#DELETE #3. Several other phrases mentioned at Alt-right#Use of memes do not exist as redirects, such as "Rapefugees" (see earlier RfD) and "We wuz kangz n shieet". Readers are unlikely to stumble across these terms in legitimate, mainstream sources; the only people who regularly use them are alt-right trolls. So I see little value, and potential WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMO issues, in making them into redirects. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Readers are very likely to stumble across the term in many places (even if not mainstream) and are very likely, if having not heard of it before, to search it up on Wikipedia. I think it's very short-sighted to claim this isn't a common term. J947messageedits 23:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    That's what the search function is for. What are some examples of sources that use (not mention) the term "dindu nuffin"? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    This seems faintly ridiculous. A term does not need to be used in mainstream media to be widespread, as this one is. The underlined: The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. This is very likely to be useful to avoid readers being sucked into the alt-right wormhole. As we do seem to be wikilawyering rather than using our brains: Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Your interpretation makes the first sentence untrue. We have articles about many non-neutral terms unused in mainstream media, and apparently we can't have redirects about such terms if they aren't quite notable. The second sentence also runs contrary to your argument. The redirect may be non-neutral, but it is neutral. Also, the search function is notably unreliable and not accessible for all ways of finding content. J947messageedits 00:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    There's a difference between a term being "non-neutral" and outright racist abuse. Whether a term is widespread in the public at large is not the issue. The relevant standard per WP:RNEUTRAL is an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. These are not. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Part of an encyclopedia is covering racist abuse. We do this in articles, which of necessity come under racist names. With redirects to sub-sections of articles, I don't see how it isn't the same thing. J947messageedits 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with J947's overall logic, but I oppose DIFFCAPS situations where the difference is just the first letter of the second word of a two-word term. In an era of keyboard autocorrect and searchbar auto-capitalization-correct, I think such differences tend to surprise readers more than to help them. Thus keep and add hatnote to both Doja Cat#Controversies and Doja Cat discography in the relevant section. Create sentence-case variant per J947. (And FWIW, five months later I still feel the "rapefugees" RfD went the wrong way. Again, it's a plausible search term that's explained at the target, the quintessential situation to allow a non-neutral redirect.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Third Geneva Convention (1929)[edit]

The Third Geneva Convention from 1949 is an amendment to the one from 1929 and as such this redirect doesn't appear to make any sense. Lennart97 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep When I moved the page I stated 15:16, 21 March 2006‎ PBS "moved Third Geneva Convention (1929) to Geneva Convention (1929): Not sure of the numbering" however AFAICT this redirect does no harm and it may help people when searching for Geneva Conventions that cover POWs etc because they are likely to search on "Third Geneva Convention" when looking for such information. "Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names" (WP:AT) -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, people are likely to search for "Third Geneva Convention", but "Third Geneva Convention (1929)" specifically is not a very likely search term. If people do search for it, are they looking for the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (1929) or for the Third Geneva Convention? Just letting them see the search results, which show both, seems more helpful than taking them to one or the other. Lennart97 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per observation about the search results being more helpful. Seems to agree with the first reason listed under WP:R#DELETE. The second reason also applies: in this case Geneva Convention (1929) = Andrew B. Smith, Third Geneva Convention (1929) = Adam B. Smith, and Third Geneva Convention = Adam Smith. The only reason under WP:R#KEEP is the one concerning some people finding it useful, but it would actually harm people who landed on that page if the search results would be more useful and the redirect itself confused them away from Third Geneva Convention. Knr5 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


Not mentioned at target; mentions elsewhere on Wikipedia appear to be referring to postal codes. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
19:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Obvious target is Tesla Model S, except that no one has added it there ([15]). MB 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The most prominent use on Wikipedia is APT-69420, other uses include postcodes in France and Texas, a slowly rotating minor planet, a Star Wars action figure's product code, an NER Class N locomotive and the SeaLifeBase taxon identifier for the Australian sea lion. The minor planet is the only one of these I think that would work as a redirect target, although the locomotive and hacking group would be fine on a disambig. Google adds the Tesla thing, a substring of Pi, the postcode for Kazlų Rūda, Lithuania, a song by non-notable band Lossheep, and an ordnance relating to a historic district in St. Louis, Missouri. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft disambig will help if there are varied usages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's also the INSEE code for Ampuis, France. Narky Blert (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've drafted a dab page if that is the result. That might be slightly better than deleting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talkcontribs) 23:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not even for numbered minor planets this type of "stand-alone number-only redirect" works. There is already a complete listing for all numbered minor planets (more than half a million, see LoMP). -- Rfassbind – talk 00:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat[edit]

Formerly used in Lord Lovat as redirect to the 13th Lord (which is by some considered the 15th): the fact is the actual 15th Lord Lovat is a different person (a WWII veteran born in 1911, as the text itself says). I fixed the link in Lord Lovat, now the redirect is quite useless as it is not mentioned as target by any page and IMHO should be deleted. Leofbrj (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

December 1[edit]

Quadratic extension[edit]

Retarget to Field extension#Extension field, which explains the topic in a more fundamental context rather than an application. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
23:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support retarget. The proposed new target is where I would have expected this to redirect to, assuming we don't have a separate article on the topic (which we currently don't). I have taken the liberty of fixing a reversal of the article title and section title in the proposed redirect, which I assume was a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Technical point: in characteristic 2, an extension of degree 2 may not be generated by the extraction of a square root, though it is always given by adjoining a root of a quadratic (separable case). I don't object to the change of target, but it would be helpful to have this issue discussed. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    The proposed target does not seem to discuss the structure of quadratic extensions anyway, for any characteristic, so that's definitely a topic to expand the article on. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    17:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


I sampled pages linking to the redirect. I found that users refer it to the other page Wikipedia:Article size. Furthermore, WP:SIZE currently redirects to that page. To avoid confusion, especially from those wanting to just lowercase "size" while typing, the "Size" should also redirect to "Wikipedia:Article size". Alternatively, it can become a disambiguation page, but I'm unsure whether it would be often referred to the "size of Wikipedia" itself. George Ho (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate -- (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate makes sense. I refer to article size a few times a year, and the size of Wikipedia is more of a fun-to-know thing that doesn't help editors. But it's pretty neat and worth not hiding either. Remembering that I need to type ARTICLESIZE insteaf of SIZE uses extra brain cells I can't spare. If no disambig, SIZE should go to the article size page. Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Article size and remedy the 94 existing links to the page as necessary. This would be an arguable case for disambiguation given the broad and simple nature of the term. However, over 3500 extant links exist to WP:SIZE (making it unwise to change both due to the required labor and the trouble it would cause for this who use this regularly; unfortunately this seems to have developed a primacy and it is therefore too late for what would be ideal projectspace disambiguation in this case), and the upper and lowercase version should practically point to the same place. WP:SIZEWP and WP:WPSIZE would serve well as projectspace shortcuts for the current target. Moreover, a hatnote listing the current target (and anything else relevant enough) can be placed at WP:Article size as a navigational aid for those who may be looking for a different page. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

File:4 to Doomsday DVD cvr.png[edit]

Unused redirect; updated file location to actual episode title. -- /Alex/21 07:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT. J947messageedits 07:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, there's a guideline, but what purpose does this redirect serve? -- /Alex/21 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    Because the file was at this title for over 12 years, there are likely external links pointing to this redirect intending to point to the file. J947messageedits 00:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    I see no such external links? Is this more an assumption? -- /Alex/21 00:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    It's an assumption. A simplified version of things: if the assumption is true, people will be harmed by the deletion of this redirect or helped by the existence of this redirect. If the assumption is false, no one will be helped or harmed by the deletion of this redirect or no one will be helped or harmed by the existence of this redirect. So either deleting this redirect is a net negative or a net neutral. Bear in mind that redirects are cheap. J947messageedits 00:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    This image is copyrighted. External links should not be referencing this image at all. If they want to use it, they will need their own fair use rationales on their own sites. Thus any external links are not a good reason to keep this around. Indeed it would seem to be a bad reason to keep it around, by facilitating copyright violations off site. Since Wikipedia is not COMMONS, the external sites linkage shouldn't really be an issue, since shared images come from Commons, shared among many projects, while English Wikipedia doesn't do this as a project goal. Copying the rule from COMMONS doesn't really help English Wikipedia in this case, since other wikipedias are not relying on English Wikipedia to serve their images. -- (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    It would not seemingly be inappropriate for a website to have provided for people to follow and view the image (while not hosting it themselves). Even if it is, that is not our concern. Moreover, someone may have stored the link privately (i.e. not publicly) for some reason or another. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    Not to mention the page histories, which would be unnecessarily obfuscated. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    17:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    Yet we delete templates all the time, even though they greatly damage historical versions of articles, when you try to see an old version, and the template no longer exists that formats the articles. As a cover image, this doesn't really obfuscate the article. -- (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    Redirects are cheap. Unlike a template, its existence does not encourage new usage. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT. This page was created in 2009. Anyone visiting this file from a local or external link of the old name would be hampered by the deletion of this redirect. File redirects are retained unless the file was only at the former title for a short time. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Barrow County, Alaska[edit]

Anyone who wants to know which county-equivalent Utqiagvik is in can go to Utqiagvik and read the infobox. These redirects are all misnomers and implausible as search terms. feminist (+) 10:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yes, the Borough is much larger than Barrow (and I must have missed that it was renamed!). -- Tavix (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Alaska Census Divisions, 1970 Census.jpg
  • Note — Since Alaska was prohibited from establishing counties by the 1912 organic act establishing the Territory of Alaska and the writers of the Constitution of Alaska decided not to bother with counties in favor of another system, *ANY* usage of the term "county" with respect to Alaska is misleading. However, you may believe using that term helps readers who fail to understand the numerous differences between Alaska and other states. To that end, Barrow was the name given to the equivalent first-level subdivisions recognized in both the 1960 and 1970 censuses preceding the borough's 1972 incorporation (see map of 1970 Census divisions). Most first-level subdivisions used in early statehood years were dervied from recording districts, which were used as second-level subdivisions in the 1910 through 1950 censuses. So there is a long-established historical precedent for the use of the term "Barrow" in this context. As for the other term, looks like I was correct in predicting that caving in to advocates on the indigenous naming issue would have unintended consequences. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete the Utqiagvik ones, since such a division has never existed. Delete Barrow County since Alaska has never had counties in any meaningful sense. Barrow Borough then becomes the tricky one. It wasn't really a predecessor to North Slope, since the boundaries are so different. That said, it seems that it might make sense to describe the 1970 census divisions in the history section of the article on North Slope and redirecting to that section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Rotsa ruck. Throughout the encyclopedia, the overall presentation of Alaska's local government structure is an untenable mess, mostly written by editors who plainly demonstrate a lack of the slightest familiarity with the subject matter. I haven't had much of a stomach for straightening it out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Barrow Borough for now and retarget to History when we have more description at the current target per Oiyarbepsy. Delete the rest. Jay (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: Just not seeing a reason for deletion here. Could this place legit be referred to by this title? Yes. Could anything else be referred to that way? No. On the basis of those two answers, keep as a redirect. pbp 17:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Seems harmless and a reasonable mistake to make. SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion seems to be leaning towards keep, but there's no clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Barrow Borough and Barrow County; Barrow was the name of a previously extant census division, as showed by RadioKAOS above, and the county/borough mixup is an easily understandable mistake for users to make. Delete the Utqiagvik variants; because there was never a borough-level division named for them, it feels less plausible that "Utqiagvik Borough" (or County) would be a term someone was seeking. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

List of digraphs[edit]

Digraphs aren't limited to the Latin script, and we do have a List of Cyrillic digraphs and trigraphs as well, though more writing systems are listed at Digraph (orthography)#Examples. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
22:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The rd is a leftover from when I moved the page. It could, of course, be a dab instead; there are no incoming mainspace links to worry about. If we keep it as it, we should have a hat note at 'List of Latin-script digraphs' -- but without incoming links, why clutter that article? Best I think to turn it into a dab page. — kwami (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this goes to what the end-user would expect. If you were writing in the see also section and typed in "you can find other examples at the [[list of digraphs]]", what would you expect to link to? A list of Cyrillic digraphs? Arabic? Ge'ez? No, you would expect that to be digraphs in the writing system for the "en" Wikipedia, i.e. the Latin script. The second question is whether a user would realistically use that particular link for that purpose, and I would have no doubt that someone who doesn't routinely work in non-Latin scripts (i.e. 99% of editors) would do so. Lastly, the question is whether other content should go here, e.g. a disambiguation page, and although that is a possibility, unless a significant amount of editors would expect this link to be to a disambiguation page for lists of digraphs in several scripts, or the number of alternatives becomes unmanageable, this is better handled by a hatnote at the target page if even one editor were to express that expectation. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I would suspect some would want digraphs from any script, not just Latin, as a whole over different scripts. -- (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I honestly cannot come up with a plausible use case for that. If someone is talking about digraphs outside a specific script, they're going to link to the concept of digraph, not a list of digraphs from multiple scripts. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 06:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate to all articles or sections of articles that lists them -- (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    What about Digraph (orthography)#Examples itself as a target? It links both lists that exist as well as adding information for some more writing systems. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    10:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    That would seem to be a reasonable target. -- (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per above. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Digraph (orthography)#Examples since it already has a list of digraphs from many scripts with links to the Latin and Cyrillic links. Any dabpage would necessarily be clumsy as it would need to link to that section anyway for non-Latin non-Cyrillic scripts (so it might as well just send you there for everything), and anything more on that page would be essentially just a content fork. eviolite (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: As per above, many articles/article sections this could refer to. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the November 23 log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Regulatory law[edit]

Retarget to Primary and secondary legislation. In fact, the term Regulatory law can have two meanings: delegated law or administrative law. I am not a lawyer, but as far as it seems to me, the first meaning is more common. Alternatively, disambiguate between the two options. --Northumber (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft DAB needs to be created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


Retarget to Wikipedia:Project namespace#Historical pages, and remedy the less than fifty occurrences of this redirect (~45) that already exist. The proposed target is more closely associated with the notion of historical projectspace pages. WP:DEMOTE does not currently exist, and would as a fitting alternative as a shortcut for the current target (WP:Demoted exists, reasonably, as a redirect to Wikipedia:Former featured articles; WP:DEMOTED should be created and redirect there as well—however, that only currently has four linked occurrences, making it easily malleable as well). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate it can cover demoted policies, historical records, etc, by being a disambiguation page -- (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Demoted could serve as a disambiguation page perhaps. However, projectspace shortcuts are by rarely unambiguous; such a solution is only implemented in select cases that are very likely to lead to severe confusion, and this does not seemingly meet that bar. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:Historical could serve that then, and redirect HISTORICAL to it, as the shortcut is supposed to be allcaps. WP:DEMOTED/WP:Demoted would be a subcase of HISTORICAL, and not the other way round. -- (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the order, I still disagree that a disambiguation page is appropriate per my statement above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Embarkation Room[edit]

This redirect was caused by a series of merges. In 2005, someone had created a stub about the Embarkation Room in Stargate, which is the room where the characters travel through their Stargate on Earth. In 2006, the stub was merged into Stargate Command, which was merged into Stargate Program in 2008, which was merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters in 2019. However, the Embarkation Room is not mentioned in the article at all. I'm not sure what the best action to take is, but it certainly shouldn't be left as-is. There isn't a great place to retarget this to. The best place I can find is List of Stargate SG-1 characters#Recurring Stargate Command personnel, which contains a paragraph about the base in which the Embarkation Room is located, although it does not currently mention the room itself. Another option is deletion. The redirect is not used very frequently, having only gotten 9 views between November 22, 2020 and November 22, 2021]. It may also be worth mentioning that the room was also called the Gateroom, but no redirects titled Gateroom, Gate room, or Gate Room exist. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Utley[edit]

Former exec for an unclear amount of time, is mentioned at the target but only in a WP:COATHANGER-y capacity that should probably be removed or at least rewritten. Deletion to allow for search results seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Christmas parade car crash[edit]

Delete or setindexify there have been many vehicular accidents during Christmas parades over the decades. It is not that rare for being to be killed during parades. There was a non-fatal incident in 2018 at Disney -- (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

NAACP Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers[edit]

Does not appear to be mentioned in the article anymore. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Was an article, BTW. J947messageedits 22:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose keep - Redirect is too long and it's not because it needed to be shorter. - (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Please could you clarify? "Oppose" and "keep" both suggest you don't want to see this deleted, but in combination it implies you do want to see it deleted? I'm also not sure why the length of the title is relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Lawsuits, where it's discussed in the first paragraph. WP:BLAR doesn't require an AfD here, as far as I can see, since no one's objected to the blanking. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    The redirect has been nominated for deletion, which is an objection to the outcome of blanking and so an objection to the blanking. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    I was going to write a response to this, as I think it's a misreading, but Snood1205's !vote has rendered it moot, so I'll just say I'm happy for the article to be restored and go to AfD, but would be surprised if the result there was anything other than what I've proposed above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Arms & Hearts as the simple WP:NOTBURO solution.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert per Thryduulf. As there are now two arguments for reversion, and I'll make mine specifically not as a procedural argument, but as an argument that I think the article should not have been turned into a redirect. It at least arguable meets WP:GNG and the rationale for WP:BLAR was that the article was poorly written. I know this isn't an AfD for the article, but the article in the state it was in from March before it was turned into a redirect plus information that has come up about the lawsuit since the change would at least make for an interesting AfD. To note, I don't fault the editor who turned the page into a redirect. WP:BOLD is an important thing to follow, just in this specific instance I contest this. So with that all said, revert and AfD. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 02:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we Restore+AfD or look at retarget if the eventual result of the AfD could be the proposed retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

November 30[edit]

Parker Coppins.[edit]

This redirect was created as an article, nominated for speedy deletion, and turned into a redirect to Parker Plays. The same things happened to the now-redirect Parker Coppins (no period). However, the title of Parker Coppins. (with a period) isn't a particularly useful redirect. Because this was previously an article, I'm not using R3. See, for a similar discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 14#Barack Obama.. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. This was my compromise as the article did not belong in mainspace and yet was not obviously deletable A7 (as tagged) or G11 (more debateable), and Parker Plays has better written & sourced biographical content. I hadn't realised the same content was also in the history of Parker Coppins. Perhaps the version with the full stop could be speedy deleted A10 as a duplicate that adds no useful content to Parker Plays; the material is somewhat different but as it's completely unsourced it isn't useful for expansion. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: error with trailing full stop. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thompson, Sanford, & Ginnochio[edit]

Not used and implausible typo. This is a name mixup, the firm is Thompson, Sanders, & Ginocchio, which is itself a redirect to Charles L. Thompson and associates. Note that in addition to Sanford/Sanders, Ginocchio has two spelling errors also. Delete. MB 18:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - "Ginnochio" on its own could have been a plausible typo, but when combined with the Sanders/Sanford mixup, this definitely falls in the 'implausible' category. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Bhutanese natinal anthem[edit]

This redirect was created as a result of a page move, and is in fact a double redirect that ultimately leads to Druk tsendhen. I don't think "Bhutanese natinal anthem" is a particularly useful typo to maintain as a redirect, so rather than repoint the redirect to Druk tsendhen, I'd instead recommend that it be deleted outright. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert George Adams[edit]

no incoming links and no mention in any article Leschnei (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete No info on wiki, can't find anything off-wiki either. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This, Adams motor and Adams Motor once all pointed to an article about a particular proposed perpetual motion machine design: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams motor and [16]. It looks like it ended up being merged into the main perpetual motion article, then all trace of the Adams motor, and its inventor, disappeared from the main article. As such, it serves no purpose any more. -- The Anome (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Poptoday 1/testcase[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Nevisian Heroes[edit]

Nevis has a section on notable people, but it seems unlikely anyone would search for them or refer to them as "Nevisian Heroes". Lennart97 (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


Misleading wikilink; maybe a better redirect would be to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Easily confused terms but there could be other things that people are searching for (such as English transliteration of Arabic script). —AFreshStart (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget with hatnote, per Thryduulf and Snood1205. -- The Anome (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose disambiguation. Shortcuts are ambiguous by their nature; it is rarely appropriate to disambiguate them, and this case certainly does not meet that bar. No preference as to where this points, just that it points to one page. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


implausible typo for target, not mentioned at target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)