Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 18

December 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 18, 2024.

Colin Mitchel Robert v. The United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 09:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Mitchel Robert v. The United States → Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court#Mitchel v. United States (1835) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. It is a misreading of the full case name, "COLIN MITCHEL, ROBERT MITCHEL, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND [...] v. THE UNITED STATES". The person's name was Colin Mitchel. "Robert Mitchel," whoever that is, is a different name that probably belongs to someone else who is not mentioned in the opinion or in the literature. "Colin Mitchel Robert" is nobody, so this is objectively not likely to be searched. The only reason this existed in the first place was to redirect a link from the relevant disambiguation page, Mitchell v. United States, to the relevant subsection about the case. I have made a proper redirect to serve that purpose at Mitchel v. United States (1835). lethargilistic (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The Man Who Sold The World(Nirvanacover)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Deleted under WP:CSD X3 rationale, as the only edits to this redirect were fixes of double redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Sold The World(Nirvanacover) → The Man Who Sold the World (song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Missing a space before the disambiguator. Not sure if WP:X3 would apply here? 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E9BC:B9ED:405A:596B (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per nom. it's missing two spaces!! consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 20:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

0-3-5

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#0-3-5

The Boys Are Back in Town (to kill you)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boys Are Back in Town (to kill you) → The Boys Are Back in Town (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Apparently the name of a video remix, but the word "kill" doesn't appear in the target article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E9BC:B9ED:405A:596B (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you know that redirect that got up and ~~slapped~~ kissed the boys' face? now it's ~~deleted~~

living happily in a b-class article with its 2 grammatical variants (which are not orphans and/or pending g6/g8 speedy deletion regarding the original redirect, which is very much still up)

...for the uncursed, this means delete consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 20:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cogsan I appreciate all the good work you do at RFD but I understand like 10% of your comments BugGhost 🦗👻 22:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lmao who is this cogsan, i don't know anyone with that name

it's a "contextually adjusted" line from the video in question. i should bring that total down to around 5% consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Consarn (sorry, missed the name change!) - I should have assumed the ref was from the RFD topic so fair enough, thanks for the explanation (we're now sitting at 11%) BugGhost 🦗👻 07:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, don't worry. Consarm does this kinda thing constantly. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand like 5%, but I go with my gut. The more cryptic the comment, the more he wants to get the redirect deleted. Jay 💬 09:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is... not wrong, and i hate that it's not wrong consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 12:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

I smell of wine and cheap perfume

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was 'Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I smell of wine and cheap perfume → Don't Stop Believin' (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Only mentioned in a reference in the target article 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E9BC:B9ED:405A:596B (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the correct form of the lyric "The smell of wine and cheap perfume". It's a reasonable search term, but the current title of the redirect is incorrect. 1857a (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not mentioned in target, and not a particularly famous lyric. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incorrect lyrics; creation of the correct lyric would be of rather marginal utility and I would advise against that. We don't need to be clogging up the search function with the wikipedia equivalent of throwing unwanted food out the car window - maybe some animal will eat it, but it's not worth making the mess. Hog Farm _Talk 15:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – incorrect rendering of a line that is not one of the most famous lines in the song. Too unlikely of a search term to be useful. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

ITEOTWAWKI

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Do as proposed by Fieari * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITEOTWAWKI → It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
WTFK → What's the Frequency, Kenneth? (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
DLTSGDOM → Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gjwthf → Girls Just Want to Have Fun (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
ITSISK → Is There Something I Should Know? (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
ISHFWILF → I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
A1BTD → Another One Bites the Dust (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
YSMANL → You Shook Me All Night Long (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wtshnn → Where the Streets Have No Name (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IBIATCL → I Believe in a Thing Called Love (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
EOTT → Eye of the Tiger (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Again, no evidence that any of these songs are referred to by these initialisms. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E9BC:B9ED:405A:596B (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Per nom. It's similar to a past RfD which resulted in 7 initialisms for songs being deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed !Vote as follows:
Keep ITEOTWAWKI - Google shows this is an unambiguous target.

Delete WTFK - Google and our own internal search shows this as ambiguous

Keep DLTSGDOM - Unambiguous.

Delete Gjwthf - Google shows this is ambiguous.

Delete ITSISK - Google shows another song as WP:PTOPIC, but said song is non-notable.

Retarget ISHFWILF to Asylum (Disturbed album), which has a cover of the U2 song expressly under this direct name (the initialism).

Delete A1BTD - Google shows this is ambiguous.

Keep YSMANL - Gets a LOT of google hits showing it is used, and used unambiguously. Fieari (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wtshn - Google shows a split between the song and a particular trail in the Alps, with slight preference for the Alps. I don't think said trail is notable enough for a page, so this is ambiguous towards a non-notable topic and thus should be deleted.

Delete IBIATCL - Google shows this is ambiguous.

Delete EOTT - Exceptionally ambiguous, might want a DAB eventually.

In summary, each of these should be treated differently... not really a good bundle. Fieari (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except ISHFWILF (retarget to the Disturbed album, as above), otherwise a good bundle. That people might sometimes acronymize a title when writing about a song is no basis to make or keep such redirects. Anyone looking for information about the song can search for the song. Anyone trying to figure out what an acronym stands for can use Google. Wikipedia is not Google. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ITEOTWAWKI and DLTSGDOM in particular are far too big to type naturally User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full names of the actual songs, and the article titles themselves, are far longer. So how is the initialism too long? Fieari (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed vote per Fieari - some (not all) of these redirects are unambiguous and used online. We don't gain anything from deleting unambiguous redirects. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The natural initialisms are going to have some legs, especially for longer titles. I don't think the nominator did sincere research before coming to their conclusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Argufying

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argufying → Argument (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Looking at wikt:argufy, this term has more to do with disputes and disagreements than a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. But I can't find an appropriate place to retarget it – apparently, we don't have an article on the general concept of disputes. (Disagreement (epistemology) and Objection (argument) are far too specific and theoretical, Dissent is only about disputes against authority, and Controversy is about a broad public state of affairs.) Another possibility is to target William Empson, who wrote Argufying: Essays on Literature and Culture (1987). jlwoodwa (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, i just made it since it was a synonym. CheeseyHead (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No pages currently link to the redirect; it has had 7 page views in the 90 days before the RFD opened. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Argufy should also be part of this discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect to the wikitionary entry. Nom is correct that the current target does not have information on what this word refers to, nor do we have an article that fits, but this is a plausible search term as the word is unfamiliar to many and wikipedia is a likely place to look for it. Sending them to wiktionary will serve them far better than giving them meaningless search results here where we don't actually have what they are looking for. I would not strongly object to redirecting to William Empson as an alternative, but I think the wiktionary soft retarget would better suit what I think the searcher is likely looking for (namely, "what is this word?"). Fieari (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸🎄 19:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obscure word with no specific discussion of this as a distinct topic. Let the search function do its job, which includes providing a link to the Wiktionary entry. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IP 35. Jay 💬 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

O'Doyle Rules

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O'Doyle Rules → Billy Madison (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The text is not mentioned in the redirect target, so the redirect should be deleted. This has been discussed at Talk:Billy Madison#O'Doyle Rules. Graham87 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; not doing any harm, and on par with redirects such as What we've got here is failure to communicate. Admittedly the capitalization is odd, and O'Doyle rules/O'Doyle rules! are not redirected. --Quuxplusone (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or weak soft redirect to q:Billy Madison. Jay 💬 08:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸🎄 19:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per standard. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

HammerHead (company)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HammerHead (company) → Shadow Master (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Barely mentioned in target article for its existence. Obscure company which developed four games and is not notable for any more than that, and there is no suitable redirect target with sufficient info on the company. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. no sources in the history, so it's not worth keeping cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hammerhead dab says Hammerhead (company) is a subsidiary of SRAM Corporation. Retarget to SRAM Corporation#Hammerhead. Jay 💬 08:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸🎄 19:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SRAM Corporation#Hammerhead probably shouldn't exist - that entire section is too directory-ish. If it exists it remains a reasonable target, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

PITNOL

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#PITNOL

EWtRtW

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EWtRtW → Everybody Wants to Rule the World (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
EBWTRTW → Everybody Wants to Rule the World (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No evidence that this song is referred to by either of these initialisms. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E9BC:B9ED:405A:596B (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and a past precedence. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google says that this initialism only refers to this song, and it gets a fair bit of use. Fieari (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous consensus and my reasoning at other song acronym titles. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being made up with no use in sources, plenty of precedence, including the linked discussion above, the RfD discussion for AAoDT, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fieari, unambiguous, used. Other initialisms of song titles being deleted 9 years ago doesn't mean all initialisms of song titles should be deleted forever, we should look at each one individually. The AAoDT rfd has no bearing at all on this one, as that initialism was for a unofficial name of a current event, not a named title of a creative work. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's plenty of evidence of use when searching online. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

2029 Women's Cricket World Cup

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Women's Cricket World Cup → Women's Cricket World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No relevant information at the target, except that the tournament expands from 8 teams to 10 in 2029. The redirect, based on the target at the moment, is misleading and WP:TOOSOON based on the expectation of finding relevant information when searching for this title. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon to find actual infomation about the tournament. Should be recreated closer to time.Techie3 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep: Details for 2025–2029 ICC Women's Championship have been officially unveiled by ICC from which teams will qualify for 2029 Women's Cricket World Cup, so it makes sense to keep the redirect as within the next few months the article will be created. Also, ICC is currently unveiling their FTPs one by one; more details about this one could be released within the next few days. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC) – Delete: as WP:TOOSOON. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Hurricane Katrina (lists)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 29#Hurricane Katrina (lists)

Forcible confinement

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 28#Forcible confinement

Failed star

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 14:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failed star → Brown dwarf (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

0: It's rude to the brown dwarves using wikipedia 1: This phrase is never mentioned anywhere in the text of the article, 2: I'm not too convinced if this is even a plausible redirect because this only had 4 pageviews in the last 30 days as compared to the 19,442 of the target and 3: as @Steel1943 mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_9#Failed_wannabe_star this might be potentially confusing with other stuff like a celebrity that was really popular for a short while but eventually fell thanks to time User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm, maybe disambiguate between brown dwarf and Jupiter (which is often referred to as a failed star, and even briefly mentioned there)? It's a bit of a stretch though, and the celebrity angle is plausible, but what would even be an appropriate target for that? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jupiter is not a failed star. Failed stars formed in the manner of stars, not in the manner of planets, and fail to ignite protium fusion. Jupiter has never been close to that, it is just a misconception that Jupiter is a failed star, and we should not propagate that misconception. Empirical studies [1] seem to indicate that a lower limit of star-type-formed objects are 4 Jupiter masses and larger. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is indeed how brown dwarfs are referred to as [2][3][4][5][6] -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted above, this is an actual term used to describe brown dwarfs, and thus a plausible redirect. A low number of hits doesn't necessarily mean a lack of plausbility. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See secondary ref Burgasser, Adam J. "Brown dwarfs: Failed stars, super Jupiters." Physics Today 61.6 (2008): 70-71. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plausible even if our stats show low usage. This is still a useful and helpful redirect for those who do need it, however few they may be. Fieari (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Hurricane Katrina (contents)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina (contents) → Hurricane Katrina (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redundant redirect, I don't think adding "contents" as redirect is useful A1Cafel (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "article" hidden in contexts was a TOC of articles related to Katrina User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a ToC page, not an index page, not an outline page; don't know what they were going for, but it was and is useless. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. Quite frankly, the article hiding in the history, I would have attempted to WP:PROD. Steel1943 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Flag of North Yemen

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Flag of Yemen#North Yemen * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of North Yemen → Flag of Yemen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ill make it an article just like how Flag of South Yemen is an article Abo Yemen ✉ 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Normally, I'd say retarget to North Yemen (which is incorrectly marked as a dab page, more on that in a moment), which has a picture of the flag. It's short enough to accommodate information about the flag there, and if a spinout is warranted, that can happen without discussion here. However, I notice that the nominator has recently converted it from a dab page to an article (without removing the dab template or adding any sources). I don't know a thing about the history of the region and have no idea if this was reasonable or not. I'd encourage others that might to take a closer look. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you make it an article, I'd say delete. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. It being an article now, this is no longer an RfD matter but (if the condition doesn't improve) a WP:AFD or WP:SPEEDY or WP:PROD matter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under which title is the article? Jay 💬 16:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or Delete or what SMcCandlish said (which was unclear to me)? Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure what article User:SMcCandlish is referring to, but there is relevant content at the current target. I see no reason to delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to Flag of Yemen#North Yemen – I presume SMcCandlish got confused about something, given there is no article or article in the history at the current target. I prefer the current target to North Yemen, though it would do good to point it to the section of the article that actually talks about the North Yemen flag. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with refining as well. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to Flag of Yemen#North Yemen, which covers this content. If someone wants to spin this out into a separate article, then the redirect can just be replaced with an article. Hog Farm _Talk 16:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Specialization in bees

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Disambiguate * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialization in bees → Bee (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

is there a chance of it being used to refer to some other type of specialization, like beekeeping? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Melittology? That's what came to my mind when I saw this nomination. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to worker bee unless a better target is found- I would think that someone searching for this is looking for a list of different bee castes... and it looks like worker bee has that information. I'm rather surprised the main bee article doesn't have it, and that there isn't an article entitled bee castes. Fieari (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Like Mx. Granger, my first though was "scientific specialization in bees", which apparently is called Melittology. However, I'm fairly interested in biology, and Fieari had a totally different response. I think a WP:DAB is possible. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 12:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My first assumption was also melittology, though I can also see the other ideas. Perhaps a DAB is possible? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ratarget to one of the suggestions, or disambiguate? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Polyethism or Task allocation and partitioning in social insects. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted above, but I would not object to a disambiguation page. Fieari (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

drafted an extremely undercooked dab. as in i'm pretty sure if jimmy saw it, he'd reenact gordon ramsay getting mad at tom hall. not even a joke, this actually happened, i couldn't make it up if i tried consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 11:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "specialization in certain roles", would something like "how division of specialized labor is organized in the colony" be preferable? Just plain Bill (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested Melittology above, but I think the drafted DAB looks pretty good – I support that as a solution. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

TikTok Rizz Party

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#TikTok Rizz Party

BlueSky

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSky → Blue Sky (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Arguing that BlueSky should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bluesky (BlueSky → Blue Sky) given a lot of people think the S is capitalized. The Wikinav data at the current DAB page target shows that clearly the majority of users expect to navigate to the social media platform. Raladic (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is Blue sky also redirects to the dab, and well, the general concept of the sky being blue has a much greater long-term significance than a social media platform. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a whole space in between though, which is why it's fine to have Blue sky redirect to the DAB page. Whereas BlueSky is just alternate capitalization to Bluesky, which is obviously the WP:PTOPIC as it is un-disambiguated. Navigation is there to help the user and likely many users accidentally think the social media platform is using a capitalized S, which is why they're landing on the DAB instead of the target as the DABs navigation shows. This redirect was only just created 4 months ago by @Bobby Cohn, so I think just pointing it straight to the likely target as alternative capitalization makes sense. Raladic (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent. If I recall, in creating the redirect, I was surprised (probably like many of our readers) to find out the social media company did not use CamelCase, but given the length of the dab page wasn't sure if it was determinative enough to claim it for the company. That is to say I would not be opposed to the proposed redirect as nominated, with the {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}. I think whatever would aid our readers the most, but with that said, I'm not sure the wikinav results can confirm that the majority are landing on the page from the redirect with the intention on getting to the social media company, unless there's a way to tell that. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the social media, as that's by far and away the "BlueSky" they want to read about the most for now. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beware recentism. The social network has existed for about two years and, despite its trendiness, is not actually that big in the grand scheme of social networks. It has, for sure, enough significance to win out as the primary topic for Bluesky over Bluesky, Alberta and Bluesky Formation. But asserting it as the primary topic for a miscapitalization is quite another thing, especially when there are things on the DAB page that actually are capped that way, namely BlueSky Software and BlueSky Charter School.
However, we can emphasize the social network a bit more, by starting the DAB with "Bluesky is a social media platform. Blue Sky, BlueSky or Bluesky may also refer to...". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, the redirect is newer than the company, so it's hard to argue that there's recentism with regards to keeping it to the DAB. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone only recently thought to make the redirect has no bearing on whether a retarget would be recentist. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that's why I brought it to RfD as I wasn't sure if I should do it boldly, so I wanted more input from other editors. Raladic (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DAB - I don't believe that the social network has firmly established WP:PTOPIC status over everything else at the disambiguation page. Fieari (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Bluesky the primary topic? Notified of this discussion at Bluesky as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Tamzin. If Bluesky proves to have enduring significance then we can revisit. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Conspiracism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Re-refine * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracism → Conspiracy theory#Conspiracism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target section vanished.

67.209.128.24 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no consensus on this nomination for too long. Suggesting relisting. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been 24 hours. Discussions typically stand for 7 days before being relisted. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove section target, or possibly re-refine - I can't find the edit where the specific section marker "Conspiracism" was removed, but from scanning the article, I would bet that it was reworded to the "conspiracy ideation" phrasing that appears throughout the article, and thus the information is still all here. We could refine to the Conspiracy theory#Psychology or Conspiracy theory#Sociology sections, but the entire article does kinda talk about this, so my first choice would actually be to just remove the section target altogether and leave it just targeted at the article as a whole. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to whole article - or just leave it alone, which will have much the same effect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Re-refine to the #Psychology section, which is where the original material got moved to, and it still discusses this as a distinct concept (also should be bolded there in that case). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

YV (rapper)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#YV (rapper)

R&B

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R&B → Rhythm and blues (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Contemporary R&B.

As said on talk page, absolutely barely any articles say "Contemporary R&B" when referring to "Contemporary R&B" they just say "R&B". Having this re-direct stops lots of frustration of people redirecting to the Rhythm and Blues genre when it is a Contemporary R&B song. Please see here on how Contemporary R&B is mentioned, it's the modern day now and Contemporary R&B has gained far more notability and is now the WP:COMMONNAME and look at most Contemporary R&B article you'll notice most publications simply wrote "R&B" when citing Contemporary R&B.Eg HotNewHipHop,Billboard,The Guardian.This0k (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)} WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there are 10,000 links to this redirect so a retarget or conversion into a disambiguation page should be made very carefully. Nevertheless, I believe that a disambiguation page between these two genres is probably ideal. J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Support~~ A conversion into a disambiguation page, when done carefully, is fine with me.
This0k (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC) (your nomination is your "vote" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

This can't have one target. The nom's propose change will also frustrate people; also, their rationale seems partially based on WP:RECENTISM. I will draft a disambiguation page. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per above. मल्ल (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator, User:This0k, has been blocked as a sock. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, per WP:DENY. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As there are substantial !votes by editors who are not sockpuppets, I'm not going to speedy close it. I've struck one of the sock's comments, while Liz has struck the other. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was support for disambiguation and the draft is ready, however we need an opinion on J947's concern on how the 10,000 incoming links play out with the redirect's conversion to a disambiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep R&B stands for Rhythm and Blues. KOLANO12 3 19:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the socking and the fact that I think landing on the "original" R&B page is a fine outcome for readers. We have hatnotes for both Contemporary R&B and the disambiguation page. I don't think creating a new small disambiguation is needed; the current one, Rhythm and blues (disambiguation), is not very large and is about half R&B entries. Added: if kept, the R&B (disambiguation) redirect created in response to the drafting of the new disambig page should be retargeted to Rhythm and blues (disambiguation). Skynxnex (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as per Cremastra's changes on the page currently. I went through a couple of hundred of these, and while the preponderous of the links will go to Rhythm and blues, a significant number of them will need to be changed to Contemporary R&B. It will be a pain in the butt, but is probably the most accurate way to handle this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Leo (kaiju)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Leo (kaiju)

New Square

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Square → New Square, New York (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The current target is undoubtedly the overwhelming favourite for readers using this term, over New Square, West Bromwich, New Square, Almaty, New Square Publications, and Lincoln's_Inn#New_Square_Lawn. A slew of translations of this term into other languages are encyclopaedic things: Plaza Nueva, Praça Nova, Nytorv, and Plac Nowy.

Disambiguation in some form is required: the question is whether this disambiguation should be carried out at New Square or at New Square (disambiguation). I lean towards the former. J 947 ‡ ^edits 03:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a hatnote to new page New Square (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. The location (until 2022) of the Kazakh presidential palace seems like it's reasonably important enough in its own right that there isn't an obvious WP:PTOPIC here, so the primary title should be a dab. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with hatnote; this could go either way for me, but I lean towards keeping based on how large of a gap there is in pageviews, and the Kazakhstan square having been renamed also helps the PTOPIC case. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Finario

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Finario

Offensive content in YouTube

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 28#Offensive content in YouTube

Penthouse Suite

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. There was no opposition to the disambiguation nomination, and moreover there was support after a relist. Any editor may convert this to a disambiguation page, and make use of the suggestions of the nomination statement. Jay 💬 10:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penthouse Suite → Syd Dale (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Whilst obviously quite similar to penthouse apartment, I believe there's sufficient fuel to disambiguate this WP:DIFFCAPS-differentiated term – between "The Penthouse Suite" at the current target, the Lord T & Eloise song in the album Aristocrunk, the James Taylor Quartet album, and the radio station mentioned in passing at Hotel Baker. J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation draft requestedplease. J 947 ‡ ^edits 07:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:J947 done; sorry for the slight delay. Cheers, Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 22:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Trade Fair Grounds

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. There was no opposition to the disambiguation nomination, and moreover there was support after a relist. Any editor may convert this to a disambiguation page, and make use of the suggestions of the nomination statement. Jay 💬 10:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Fair Grounds → Dag Hammarskjöld Stadium (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is ambiguous. Google Maps leads me to Zambia (the current target), Zimbabwe, and Malawi. Mentions on Wikipedia include Tanzania, Malta, India, and various German cities.

Disambiguate appears to be the safe bet in this instance, but there are a few complicating factors. While this is a common appendix to the name of a venue, in many cases it is a PTM. Additionally, this is a very frequent second name for a venue that we may or may not list as an alternative name on the relevant article. In general, this term varies between being a description and a genuine name for a place, meaning that a dab page that covers everything is near impossible. There are also trade show, Fairground, and the redirect Trade Fair Ground to be aware of. J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguate per J947 -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation draft requestedplease. J 947 ‡ ^edits 07:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Battle of Simara (1945)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Simara (1945) → Battle of Leyte Gulf#Battle of the Sibuyan Sea (24 October 1944) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Simara" not mentioned anywhere at target, and the battle described at the target took place in 1944. There is a battle described at Corcuera#Modern history to which this may refer, but the term isn't used there either. Unless there is evidence this is a term in use, the fact this is disambiguated and the base name Battle of Simara does not currently exist suggests deletion may be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Battle off Samar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of Leyte Gulf and took place in October 1944, not 1945. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No use of the disambiguator when there is no Battle of Simara. Also remove this entry from {{Campaignbox Philippines 1944–1945}}. Jay 💬 10:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm not seeing evidence that this term is actually being used in reliable sources anywhere. Hog Farm _Talk 15:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wang Qingyun

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Wang Qingyun

Dionian(ism)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Retarget dionian, no consensus on what to do with dionism (due to lack of any concrete proposals). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dionian → Uranus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Dionism → Homosexuality (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Dionian is a translation of wikt:Dioning (heterosexual). It used to be mentioned in Uranian (sexuality), along with several terms coined by Karl. Apollonian and Dionysian could mention dionism, or Dionysus. If this means male homosexuality, then gay men? Or something similar to Achillean. See Terminology of homosexuality. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget "Dionian" to Uranian (sexuality), where it is still mentioned. Also per a Google Books search. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little less certain about "Dionism". "Dionysiac" is the common adjective for Dionysus, and the noun "Dionysism" is also used occasionally I believe, but I haven't heard "Dionism" used before with respect to the god, and the term seems too short to be capable of referring clearly to him. Among mythological figures, Dione's name would seem the closest to "Dionism". If a mention of "Dionism" at the page for the Nietzschean concept would be appropriate, then that would be a good target, but in the absence of such a mention, a page related to gay men would probably be the best target. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it also reminds me of the word Odinism --MikutoH ^talk! 02:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ecuador scuba diving

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. If someone wants to use the former article to create a new article on the subject, I'm happy to restore this to draft or userspace. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador scuba diving → Scuba diving (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

no particular affinity with ecuador, from what i can gather. originally created as an ad cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would tentatively suggest that Scuba diving in Ecuador is a notable topic, but as it stands the best way for the reader to attain information on this topic is through search results; hence, delete. J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Diving in East Timor and Diving in the Maldives already exist, and Wikipedia tends to lack articles on General Topic 1 at the best of times, so I would suggest that Diving in Ecuador is indeed notable. J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then i guess return to red. even if that article is created, this redirect's history needs to burn cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. This phrase should neither be ever linked to from mainspace or be the title of an article in the future – where does REDLINK come in? And there is never any value in deleting non-libellous page history. J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the page history is something like "scuba diving in Ecuador is the worst and anyone who does that sucks" or a copyvio there's no point to deleting User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Page history was a stub that was BLAR'd for "being an advertisement", but I honestly don't see it as an advertisement, just as somewhat poorly written, lacking in sources, and pretty vague. I agree there probably exists enough information in reliable sources somewhere to make Scuba diving in Ecuador a potential article... but we don't have it now. Some editors would reach for the WP:TNT, but I tend to like keeping old history even if it's not the greatest. Dunno what to do here though. Fieari (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One could restore the article to the draftspace and delete the mainspace redirect, if so desired. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The prior content is entirely unsourced, best to start from scratch if wanted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

regional screwdrivers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Irish, retarget Birmingham to Law of the instrument. Jay 💬 14:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish screwdriver → Hammer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Birmingham screwdriver → Hammer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

two different yet similar cases. "birmingham screwdriver" is an apparently obscure uk slang for hammer, as a reference to people from birmingham being muscleheads, while "irish screwdriver" seems to be... some brand of vodka? both terms are unmentioned in the target, and results mostly gave me miscellaneous companies and actual screwdrivers cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should note that the second one is mentioned and elaborated on in law of the instrument cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Birmingham screwdriver → law of the instrument, as that's where the expression is mentioned, and where the reader will best be able to understand what Birmingham screwdriver means.

Delete Irish screwdriver. The only results I find referring to the "irish screwdriver" as a hammer are an urban dictionary entry and a tumblr post (though the tumblr post does point to Green, Jonathon. Casell’s Dictionary of Slang - 2nd Edition. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. 2005 as a source for the expression meaning hammer). Other than those, other mentions of "irish hammer" on google are referring to a cocktail FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Birmingham screwdriver to law of the instrument and delete Irish screwdriver per discussion above. Hog Farm _Talk 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Mian Page

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Page → Main Page (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Vanishingly few page views per month(21) for a page that gets millions of views every week. There are a lot of people named "Mian Page", and Mediawiki already corrects for simple typos like this. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible. KOLANO12 3 20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason why this should even exist in the first place. ThatIPEditor ^{They / Them} 21:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(comment: "and Mediawiki already corrects for simple typos like this" I tested this now, it doesn't.)

Weak delete Unlike what some others are saying, I can relatively plausibly see someone accidentally transposing the I and A keys together. However, this is literally the first page you see when you open up Wikipedia we're talking about here, so people manually going to the Main Page is irrelevant here. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a person can just type the right words in themselves. Barnt Toust 14:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plausible type, and SOME pageviews show that it is being hit at all. No reason to delete therefore unless a newer or better target was recommended. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I clicked Special:RandomRedirect 10 times and this redirect is more used than 8 out of the 10. It's a complete no brainer. J 947 ‡ ^edits 21:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand your test. How did you get the "8 out of the 10" statistic? Jay 💬 09:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By comparing pageviews in 2024 for those 10 redirects. I did it again: this redirect is more used than 9 out of 10 (being used as much as equally as Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn). Clearly it is well used! J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it. Which 10 redirects? Can you describe your test in detail? What has Special:RandomRedirect got to do with the redirect under discussion? Jay 💬 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're 10 random redirects (that result from clicking Special:RandomRedirect, 10 times), unrelated to the one under discussion. The point is to combat the dangerous assertion that the number of pageviews that this redirect receives is in any way minimal. J 947 ‡ ^edits 10:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J947. 21 page views per month is actually awfully good. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per pageviews (so per nom, I suppose). That the target receives a high number of views doesn't change anything. This also seems unambiguous as a search term. I don't know what someone searching this could be looking for other than the main page; I'm not seeing any people called "Mian Page" that we cover. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – yeah, that's a lot of pageviews for a redirect of this type. Don't see a reason to delete this, it's clearly not implausible if people are using it this often. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 21 is more than many articles. It's a [sic] pluasible typo. Jay Cubby 19:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Celete as WP:UNNATRUAL. 67.209.129.48 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's both unnatural and implausible. Keivan.f^Talk 21:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, main point being as Someone-123-321 said: no one manually types in "Main Page", be it in the search bar or URLs, so objectively useless redirect. HKLionel (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've got a tool that can check that: WikiNav. Searching (through the search bar) accounts for only 1.12% of ways to get to the Main Page. But it's the Main Page: so that's 1.57 million views a month. In other words, as many people search "Main Page" each month as have visited Science fiction by any method in the last two years. Which is of course why this redirect has seen so much use. J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I seriously didn't expect that. I won't argue against statistical evidence. But still feels redundant to me. HKLionel (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people looking for the Main Page will find it anyway - it's not hard. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding this redirect, search results for Mian Page do not include "Main Page" in the first 20. Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless at worst, useful at best. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dominic Raaab

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep the first and delete the others * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Raaab → Dominic Raab (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Dominic Raaaab → Dominic Raab (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Dominic Raaaaab → Dominic Raab (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Dominic Raaaaaab → Dominic Raab (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Raaab" is maybe a plausible typo, but "Raaaaaab" seems wholly unnecessary. The question is at what point should we stop elongating "Raab". 1857a (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aaaall. I can't see any of these being useful, even just 3 As. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Limit it to 3 "a"s. - I think a single extra letter is a plausible typo. More than that is implausible, so delete those. Fieari (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the various spellings into Google (with quotation marks) gives some useful context. https://x.com/LRBbookshop/status/1021766749962874888 (5 'A's) https://fmttmboro.com/index.php?threads/dominic-raaaab-the-bully-boy.46133/latest (4 'A's), and the results for 3 include typos in news sites. I'd say keep all, because there seems to be actual coverage on adding extra 'A's. https://fmttmboro.com/index.php?threads/nice-one-susanna%F0%9F%98%82.33067/ Jay Cubby 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep first but delete the rest per nom. 67.209.129.48 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dicalsium Ruthenate: Ca2RuO4

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G6. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dicalsium Ruthenate: Ca2RuO4 → Dicalsium Ruthenate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Page was created as a spelling mistake -- "calsium" instead of "calcium". It does not seem to make sense to keep this for a newly created page. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, WP:G6, along with Dicalsium Ruthenate, which itself got moved to the proper title right away. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did mean to include all the "calsium" variants. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).