Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 0 1 23 24
TfD 0 0 1 1 2
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 0 21 21
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

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. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first or that it has become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, 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; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  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 runs 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 (e.g. WolVes) 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, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is 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]

STEP I.
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.
STEP II.
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|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{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.
STEP III.
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]

January 29[edit]

Scandal sheet[edit]

Suggested new target: Scandal sheet (disambiguation). Please see the discussion below, which was begun on the talkpage of the redirect page. Eric talk 01:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from Talk:Scandal sheet

@Uanfala, Narky Blert, Mathglot, and JHunterJ: Hello all. I picked you as my victims for this question as I saw your names appearing frequently in the history for Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. I ran into some confusion when (after learning of the 1952 film Scandal Sheet), I ran a wp search on the string (all lowercase) "scandal sheet", which led me (via a redirect on "Scandal sheet") to Tabloid journalism. At first I wrongly concluded, with surprise, that we somehow did not have an entry for the film. When I tentatively stuck my toe in the waters of creating a new disambiguation page at Scandal sheet (disambiguation), I discovered the page already exists, and that it redirects to the disambiguation page Scandal Sheet, which lists four films by that name. Am I right in thinking that maybe Scandal sheet should redirect to Scandal sheet (disambiguation), and that that disambig page should list the tabloid journalism article, the films, and maybe to the Wiktionary entry as well (wikt:scandal sheet)? I considered trying to bring this about, but quickly concluded that I was more likely to commit a blunder than make an improvement. Any thoughts? Eric talk 04:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gud catch! I've seen this type of problem before; it's not uncommon. Either (1) everything should be on the DAB page, or (2) there should be a {{redirect||Scandal sheet|Scandal sheet (disambiguation)}} hatnote on tabloid journalism. It's a question of whether the lowercase version is not or is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; a matter for WP:CONSENSUS. My feeling is that it is, because none of the films is well-known; so count me as !voting for option (2).
The Wiktionary link should indeed be added somewhere; another good catch. I'd suggest at the top of the DAB page as {{wikt|scandal sheet}} per MOS:WTLINK.
On a procedural note, I checked the links to lowercase Scandal sheet, and they're all OK. Narky Blert (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with most of the above. However, I don't think many readers will seek the Tabloid journalism article by searching for "scandal sheet", so I'd be inclined to make Scandal sheet a redirect to the dab ("Scandal sheet" and "scandal sheet" are the same page: as configured here, the wiki software doesn't distinguish capitalisation for the first character of a page title).
I wouldn't add a Wiktionary link: the topic is covered here on Wikipedia, so there's no need to send people elsewhere. I'm not sure about the exact meaning of the term "scandal sheet": if it's just a synonym for tabloid (as is stated in the tabloid journalism article), then we can just link to that article. If, on the the contrary, it has a different shade of meaning (as seems to be implied by the Wiktionary entry), then we can rework the information from Wiktionary into the description of the dab entry (in that case, it would be acceptable to ignore MOS:DABBLUE and have links in the description to Sensationalism and possibly Celebrity). – Uanfala (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both for your input! I was sure something wasn't quite right. I would say that the term "scandal sheet" is in much less common use now than it was during the era the first three movies were made, and so I might speculate that the majority of searchers on that term would not necessarily have term definition as their primary goal. Eric talk 14:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric:, good catch, and good comments. The only thing I'd add, is to consider raising this issue at WP:Redirects for discussion, where you'd get a wider audience. If you do, you could top it with a {{Discussion moved from}} template linking this page, and add a {{Discussion moved to}} below, linking the new one. Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

———

Hatnote it. Scandal sheets (tabloid journalism) are the primary topic of lower-case "scandal sheet".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the input. How is the primary topic determined? See my last comment in the initial discussion above. Eric talk 22:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 16:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mick Lauer[edit]

This was created as a redirect from a voice actor to a character, it was recently made into an article but it was reverted as the sources were insufficient so I moved it to draft and restored the redirect. There are similar mentions in several articles but nothing more than the fact that a character was voiced by Lauer, so I think the redirect should be deleted. Peter James (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Civil Incorporation of Church Property[edit]

No mention at the target. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Church rank[edit]

I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to (ranks within denominations? denominations ranked according to their number of faithfuls?). It is also misleading and biased, as not all ranks in churches are within the Catholic Church. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cactus Bowl(Tempe)[edit]

WP:UNNATURAL spacing, was the article's title for less than a day. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Christian heresies[edit]

On top of the fact that what constitues a heresy depends on the denomination one belongs to, the current target is misleading as Christianity is not the Catholic Church.

Therefore, I propose a retarget to Heresy in Christianity. Veverve (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pathaan[edit]

Currently targets Pashtuns, but there is a new Indian movie called Pathaan (film) that might also be a reasonable target. A user attempted a copy-paste move to this page, so I'm bringing the redirect up here for discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguate so that it mentions Pashtuns, the film and anything else that people could be searching for. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Pashtuns is the more important topic, but Pathaan seems to be a relatively uncommon spelling; Google search and news are dominated by the film, which could be just because it's recent, but in Google book search some of the results refer to the ethnic group but many are unrelated. Peter James (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Android 14[edit]

I'm nominating this redirect for deletion. I don't see any logical cause that the page should be redirected to Super Android 13 - it makes sense if it were 2021 and it were a redirect for Android 13, but I don't see how someone would look up Android 14, wishing to see this article. I think we should delete this redirect for now, or at least retarget to Android 13 (as in, the OS). Herbfur (He/Him) (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retarget to Android (operating system) Android 14 is upcoming Android mobile operating system version. So, I think it needs to retarget. Hajoon0102 💬 10:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Move to Android 14 (Dragon Ball) then retarget to Android (operating system). I suggest the same for Android 15, 16, 17 and 19 and 20, and the Android 18 and 21 articles (and similar for Android 25, but with a different disambiguator) if/when these are announced as operating system versions. Some of the recent edits could be moved if an article is to be created for the operating system. Peter James (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 28[edit]

Kremlin Palace[edit]

"Kremlin Palace" is ambiguous. An attempt by @SrpskiAnonimac: to convert this redirect to a disambiguation page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1128311709&oldid=19147393&title=Kremlin_Palace) (which I support) was reverted by @Natg 19: with edit summary "undo - longstanding redirect, use RFD", so... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untied Plankton Pictures[edit]

Misspelling of the name of the production company established by Hillenburg. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep - Although, even when scraping the bottom of the barrel, all websites I could find used the correct name, there's a chance out there that someone might think that the television company was actually called that. After all, the screen that the name appears on only appears for 2 seconds, and that's short enough for misspellings to appear. User:Someone-123-321 (chitter chatter, I contribute) 07:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects from specific planets and stars to lists of exoplanets[edit]

We shouldn't be misleading users to thinking that we have articles where we don't. All of the redirects that are planets appear as circular links on the lists, while the stars are not directly mentioned anywhere on the lists. While these exoplanets and their host stars are likely all non-notable, these redirects will discourage article creation if they are or become notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep These lists have information on these planets and their host stars, similarly to the list of minor planets which has many redirects to its sub-lists from specific minor planets. The exoplanets can be de-linked from the lists as long as they're redirects to them. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per SevenSpheres. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academy of Geneva[edit]

This was a disambiguation page listing University of Geneva and Rousseau Institute. Is the current target a correct redirect to a primary topic, or is there no primary topic here and the dab page should be restored? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Suppress the redirection. Better than for a disambiguating page, the title "Academy of Geneva" should be kept in store for a possible (and legitimate) article on ... the Academy of Geneva, which was the name of the precursor of the University between 1559 and approximately 1860, and on which almost nothing is to be found in the present article on the University. --Sapphorain (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep I think the university is the primary topic here, and the article should be expanded. FWIW fr-wiki lists the original name of Rousseau Institute as "École de Genève" not "Académie De Genève" as on enwiki. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1000000000000000000000 (number)[edit]

Former redirects to now-BLAR'd yotta- and zetta-. Delete, as the current target doesn't provide any information on the numbers beyond the prefix name, and the search term isn't particularly plausible either. Randi Moth (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget: Per Randi Moth and A7V2, we should retarget the two listed redirects to Orders of magnitude (numbers) for consistency with the other (number) prefixes. Additionally, would expand this to cover 10^12 (number) and 10^15 (number) to follow for consistency with 10^13 (number) to 10^18 (number). Am not opposed to deleting all (number) redirects, but would prefer them to be discussed in one discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 27[edit]

Dichloromethylphenylsilane[edit]

Mentioned at target, but not sure if it enough information is provided to justify a redirect. Suggest deletion to encourage article creation unless more content can be added. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OneGet[edit]

OneGet is a very separate tool that isn't related to NuGet. OneGet is the predecessor to PowerShellGet and can be installed with NuGet. NuGet had no previous names called "OneGet". See https://github.com/OneGet/oneget Aaron Liu (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"OneGet" was renamed "PackageManagement" on Mar 20, 2015, as mentioned on GitHub (/OneGet/oneget/ link above) and at Chocolatey ("In April 2014, Microsoft debuted OneGet (later renamed PackageManagement) alongside PowerShell 5.")
On 2016-06-24‎, I created both OneGet and PackageManagement as redirects to NuGet (which is consistent, but apparently wrong). (I don't recall why.)
PowerShell#Windows_PowerShell_5.0 mentions OneGet (and Chocolatey).
PowerShell#Windows_PowerShell_5.1 mentions PackageManagement.
PowerShellGet is not even mentioned on Wikipedia, though it seems important ("PowerShellGet is the package manager for PowerShell"). "Windows PowerShell 5.1 comes with version 1.0.0.1 of PowerShellGet preinstalled. .... PowerShell 6.0 shipped with version 1.6.0 of PowerShellGet. PowerShell 7.0 shipped with version 2.2.3 of PowerShellGet. The current supported version of PowerShellGet is 2.2.5. If you are running Windows PowerShell 5.1, you must install a newer version." (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/PowerShellGet/?view=powershell-7.3&viewFallbackFrom=powershell-7) PowerShellGet dates back to 2016! (https://www.powershellgallery.com/packages/PowerShellGet/2.2.5).
Is Microsoft changing everything so fast that users and Wikipedia can't keep up with it?
I was wondering why you couldn't "just fix" this. But I don't see a fix. They could just re-redirect to PowerShell, or just be deleted because they have nowhere to go...
Is PowerShellGet connected to OneGet/PackageManager or is it a separate start? (This seems like a familiar MS clusterf....)
Should PowerShellGet get a new article (is it notable?)? Then PowerShellGet could mention OneGet/PackageManagement as (irreplaceable and actively maintained?) (abandoned? semi-compatible? predecessors?) that they are? -A876 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The OneGet people left the project to go work on PowerShellGet. So the latter is essentially a spiritual successor.
I'm not sure how to deal with this either, hence why I've brought this to RfDiscussion. One choice is to expand the redirect into an article but I'm not sure if OneGet passes notability (I didn't find much coverage of it)
Also, nice edit summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silane, (4-aminobutyl)diethoxymethyl-[edit]

Compound not mentioned at target. Only mention on enwiki is an incoming link from EPA list of extremely hazardous substances; thus it seems this redirect exists solely to avoid a red link or black entry at that list. More common versions of the name such as (4-Aminobutyl)diethoxymethylsilane or Diethoxymethyl(4-aminobutyl)silane don't exist as redirects. Suggest deletion to encourage article creation unless content can be added to the current target. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Largest military confrontation in history[edit]

Typical precedent for this sort of redirects involving the superlative adjectives is to redirect them to the list of subjects ordered by the metric, such as how Largest country in the world redirects to List of countries and dependencies by area rather than to Russia. This makes sense since one searching for this sort of term typically wants not information on the result, but just the result, and possibly how it scales to other entries. Pointing to the result may also lead to readers expecting to have redirects aimed at other records, as per WP:PANDORA. However, in this case, it's fairly ambiguous which list to redirect to. "Largest military confrontation" can refer to such metrics as
· Casualties, leading to a redirect to List of wars by death toll
· Duration, leading to a redirect to List of conflicts by duration
· The amount of involved people, for which I didn't find a list.
· The amount of battles, for which I didn't find a list.

While the target page does state that the Eastern Front has been described as such, it seems unlikely that the term "Largest military confrontation in history" is used by itself to refer to the war rather than as something that describes it. I propose deletion, though disambiguation with "List of largest military conflicts" is possible. Randi Moth (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cian Ducrot[edit]

Cian Ducrot is mentioned on at least five other articles. There's no more information at this target article than the others, so as there is no one good target, delete. Ss112 16:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: For either WP:REDYES or just to not send the reader somewhere with little information on what they searched. TartarTorte 18:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geolier[edit]

There is virtually no information about the artist at the target article. The musical artist Geolier is mentioned on at least five other articles per Wikipedia's search results so there's no reason it should point to this list alone. Ss112 16:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Based on his it.wiki page, he might be notable. Disclaimer, I don't speak Italian, I just had Google machine translate the article where it said that he has a certified platinum album. --Lenticel (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sasuke Ninja Warrior Indonesia[edit]

Section this redirects to was removed in an effort to clean up the massive amount of cruft that had accumulated on the page. I'm open to a soft-redirect to the Indonesian Wikipedia's article on this version, but I don't know if that would be appropriate. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment we shouldn't redirect to another language Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia:Soft redirect: Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they are generally unhelpful to English-language readers. Instead, editors should link to the alternate language Wikipedia directly with one of various forms of interlanguage links. Not a comment on keeping or deleting the redirect itself, but on that specific thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah alright. I had a feeling that wouldn't be appropriate but figured I"d mention it in case it was. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wendy Fawell[edit]

Not mentioned at target article, as that article is not a memorial of names of non-notable people. This redirect is in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and is getting fewer than 10 views a month on average, so is not serving a useful purpose Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Israeli immigration to South Florida[edit]

This redirect target has no information at all about the subject (South Florida isn't even mentioned, and while Los Angeles is mentioned, it is not in relation to Israel). Sending readers to articles which contain no info on the topic is not helpful. (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arny of Yugoslavia[edit]

Typo fixed in 2009, speedy delete declined in 2012, no incoming links, not a common redirect pattern, utterly pointless? Joy (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep per the reason Rossami declined the speedy deletion - It is also part of the documentation of a very complicated series of pagemoves and content mergers. which indicates this is required for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't actually see what series of page moves is there, so if it's documentation, it's really bad at it. What attribution concern do we have specifically here? It's a dead redirect. @Thryduulf: --Joy (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The history of this redirect shows that content was moved from this title in 2009 to Army of Yugoslavia but there is a lot more to the history that which I don't have time to fully trace right now, especially since you seem to have deleted some of it when moving the disambiguation page earlier today. The history of page moves is part of the attribution history of the article, whether it is a "dead redirect" (whatever that is meant to mean) or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If there's a copyright issue with content that is now displayed in a separate article, I don't see how it is possible for it to exist in the 50-odd bytes of this redirect's historical entries. Not sure how the disambiguation page factors into it, either, because it's unrelated content. I'm afraid you'll have to help me out to understand what part of attribution history is actually the problem here. The worst I can imagine is that there's entries somewhere in the history of army articles that says "Moved Foo to Arny of Yugoslavia" and then the next entry later on says "Moved Arny of Yugoslavia to Army of Yugoslavia" and so on, but if we delete this Arny redirect history there's nothing in there that is relevant to article content, something that is copyrightable, something that needs to be retained to preserve attribution. --Joy (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I happened to find that entry at [1], and then this redirect's history, and then [2]. While it seems fun to be able to spelunk through history and connect the dots like that, I'm not sure what the utility of not deleting this would be, because the only content of these edits is the titles change and a handful of words like "Yugoslav Army (FRY)" or "Army of Yugoslavia" are not supposed to be copyrightable at all. --Joy (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, what are we supposed to preserve attribution for here? A page move to fix a typo? WP:CWW specifies that attribution needs to be preserved for "creating and altering the content of a page". Where does it say redirects from page moves need to be preserved for attribution? -Vipz (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moving a page (i.e. changing it's title) is a significant change to the content of that page. See also {{R from move}}. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Thryduulf: please cite a guideline that says so because I disagree. The only thing that this template says is "This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." There were no internal links to this redirect until it was nominated for deletion and linked in notifications about it. 0 external backlinks exist to this redirect, likely because it was very quickly fixed. It has no edit history apart from 1 page move, 1 double-redirect bot-fix, 1 nomination for speedy deletion, 1 revert of the previous, and 1 for this RfD. It is an implausible typo. What if a vandal created a bunch of such page moves (except with, say, vulgar titles), would we keep these too on basis of documenting a series of page moves? -Vipz (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't remember off the top of my head where this is documented (I thought the template mentioned attribution, obviously I was wrong. I'll try and remember to look tomorrow when I'm more awake) but it has been the consensus at RfD for at least the decade or so I've been a regular here. The consensus regarding vandalism is that we do not need to keep the attribution of edits that were both not made in good faith and reverted, and to my knowledge that has never been objected to by legal. Not directly relevant to your comment but worth noting that we also don't need to keep attribution for pages that have been deleted, which is why we don't need to worry about whether redirects deleted per G8 were made by page moves or not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sphilbrick I recall we had a discussion about page history attribution recently, maybe I can trouble you to help out here? --Joy (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per Joy as not a functional piece of documentation of anything (if it's documentation, it's really bad at it), and agreeing with: words like "Yugoslav Army (FRY)" or "Army of Yugoslavia" are not supposed to be copyrightable at all. Independently from that, I could not tell that this page has to do with any merger specifically. —Alalch E. 21:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pulpit fall[edit]

I have doubt on how good of a redirect it is, as it lacks clarity. I think it should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep, appears to be a synonym. Should be added to lede. See for example [3]. A7V2 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unpaved road[edit]

Per the target article, a dirt road is not the only kind of unpaved road. Unpaved roads can be made of gravel, for instance. I lean toward retargeting to road surface, but I also think restoring Special:Permalink/44277639 is something to consider, especially if someone's willing to spruce it up a bit, either as a set index article or by moving some of the off-topic content currently at Dirt road. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambig It can also be a dab page linking to gravel road and dirt road, rather than going back to a short stub article. AlphaBeta135talk 02:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Disambig per AlphaBeta. I'm sure there's also a sand road (Which probably doesn't have an article here), and "unpaved road" can also simply mean a road that hasn't been paved yet. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambig per AlphaBeta. SilkTorkAway (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Dabify per above. There seems to be no primary target between the two articles given by AlphaBeta. --Lenticel (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It isn't ambiguous, the two articles mentioned are types of unpaved road. This should probably redirect to Road surface, but there is currently no mention of dirt roads there. Peter James (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Two images[edit]

I would expect this to lead to {{multiple image}}, not this template with only one transclusion. Suggest retargeting, or if not just deleting. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Template:Multiple image supports more than just two images. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 08:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onfroy, Jahseh[edit]

The sort name of the singer's redirect using "Last name, first name" was previously deleted per WP:CSD R3, but later turned out to have a dispute between speedy deletion and deletion discussion. Please let me know whether {{R from sort name}} should work about the real name of singers! MusiBedrock (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rcie[edit]

This redirect should be deleted because it is a typo, not a misspelling (cf. Finalnd). Mast303 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak disambiguate per WP:XY and redirect to RCIE, as an ambiguous term. MusiBedrock (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: The page "RCIE" does not exist, so Rcie should be deleted. Mast303 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as an uncommon misspelling. I honestly don't understand what MusiBedrock seems to be proposing above. Disambiguating a misspelling is rarely a good idea, and retargeting to RCIE wouldn't work because it doesn't exist. CycloneYoris talk! 21:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per Cyclone. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as "rice" is a four-letter word, and simple word typos will be more known. And we don't want to waste people's time by having to fix their search term by swapping out the letters. WPchanger2011 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:REDLINK I see the point as a plausible misspelling but my Google Searches show that organizations with the RCIE acronym seems to be the likely targets. --Lenticel (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 26[edit]

Dixie, Iowa[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Sources of dubious reliability ([4], [5], [6]) consistently identify Dixie as a location in Mitchell County, Iowa, an article that also makes no mention of the place. I'm thus leaning towards deletion over redirecting there, and would appreciate additional input. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bigun[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. Seems like a plot point in target article's subject, but without definition in the target article, readers could be scratching their heads wondering why they were redirected here. In addition, search results for the term "Bigun" (Search results) return quite a few articles using this term that are not related to the target article. (Apparently, "Bigun" is a surname for several people.) In addition, the Wiktionary page Wiktionary:bigun exists. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Wiktionary:biguns exists as well. Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine if "Biguns" redirects there --Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or soft redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

East Buttress[edit]

I proposed this for deletion on the basis that "East buttress" is a generic term with several mentions in Enwiki and this page encumbers Search. "West Buttress" does not exist. It was de-PRODed by @Necrothesp: and redirected to the current target, but I wanted to check by discussion that this is appropriate. Search for "East Buttress" (with quotes) shows 43 other mentions of varying capitalization styles, most of which do not refer to Denali. I therefore still maintain that we're better off deleting this page because it is inhibiting effective Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Disambig, a quick search shows that there are multiple mountains with a feature known as the east buttress, but not too many that disambiguation is impossible. One should also be created for "West Buttress" as well, or possibly a list article could be created dealing with all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate as per User:Thryduulf. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

I would like all of these redirects deleted because we usually don't use E3 redirects with the title "E³" in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.209.40.250 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete all "E³" doesn't appear to be a stylized way to refer to this event. No use on enwiki or through a Google search AFAICT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep up to 2006, delete after – E³ appears to be a former stylised way to refer to the event, used 1995–2006. This is also the former name of the E3 article for a significant amount of time, so at the very least should stay. Everything from 2007 onwards can be deleted, since the exponent was no longer used within the event's name. Randi Moth (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all - non-standard approach to event name. --Masem (t) 14:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and delete (though for me only weak delete) exactly per Randi Moth. This styalisation used to be used so should certainly be kept for the years it was used and for the parent article. A7V2 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's agreement to delete some of the redirects, but still some disagreement on whether only to delete some or to delete all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Several of these nominations had their targets listed incorrectly as they did not include the section redirect: All redirects that did not have a matching non-superscript title were listed as targeting E3 when they actually targeted E3#Event history. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:CHEAP, them being useful for navigation, and the fact that they are unambiguous. If the stylization was used at any point, any reader could reasonably believe they could use the stylization to search up years in which the stylization may not have been applicable. (However, with all this being said, for the redirects that target E3#Event history, if those were bundled by themselves with their "E3" counterparts, I'd consider "weak delete" on those per WP:REDLINK, but it seems their current redirection is appropriate to make them {{R with possibilities}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leftovers of Views on Shia Islam[edit]

This is a series of redirects that formerly pointed to "Views on Shia Islam", a now-deleted article, which have been retargeted to the general article on Shia Islam. It doesn't seem like the general article covers any of these topics, so I would propose deleting most of these redirects.

However, I am not certain on the last two redirects. I didn't find a suitable page that may fall under Views on Shi'a Islam, though one may exist. In regards to Shi'a and Islam, retargeting to Shia–Sunni relations may make sense, however this is only about the interactions between Sunni and Shia Islam. Sunni and Shia are definitely the largest branches by a significant margin, but one searching for "Shi'a and Islam" might be searching for more general relations between Shi'a Islam and other branches, such as with Ibadi or more historical branches. Randi Moth (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the last two redirects Views on Shi'a Islam and Shi'a and Islam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • comment' The redirect Sha and islam is pure nonsense: shia is a branch of islam. it is like "Birch and tree" Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "And" can be used to signify a connection between the two, specifically as a shortened form of saying "Connection between Shi'a and the rest of Islam", such as United States and the United Nations which still exists as the title despite the USA being a part of the UN. Similarly, Shia–Sunni relations outlines the relations between Shi'a and Sunni Islam, as well as briefly touching on some historical branches of the religion. It can be a plausible redirect to there, but as before, it's more "Shi'a and Sunni" rather than "Shi'a and Islam". However, it might not be that plausible of a search term for that, as shown by the redirect barely getting any views. Randi Moth (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all except Shi'a and Islam which should retarget to Shia–Sunni relations as most likely what someone searching this is looking for. Academic Bias against The Shia could plausibly target Anti-Shi'ism but there is no discussion of academic discrimination so that would need to be added first, and I don't know if such an addition would be appropriate. The others just seem like they should have been deleted when the main article was deleted. A7V2 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Journal of Medical Research[edit]

There is a current, less reliable Journal of Medical Research, as well as a number of "X Journal of Medical Research" publications. It would be better to let the search results handle this, than risk misleading readers based on a name this journal abandoned 98 years ago. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It seems reasonable as an alternative name. Is the less reliable journal notable? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think it's encyclopedically notable, but in 2023 I'm guessing it's more likely what someone's thinking of when they search this term; note the hatnote on the target article. Usually in such cases we delete the redirect. That's probably what we should do for a lot of the redirects to pages with {{confused journal}} on them, as that template is not actually in compliance with WP:HAT and should probably be deleted; redirect deletion is the better solution for cases where a non-notable usage may have grown more prominent than a notable one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep It's a former name of a notable journal that was in use for nearly 25 years and represents the vast majority of cases (everything pre 1950 is definitely this journal. The X Journal of Medical Research journals started popping up in the mid 1990s). The modern predatory journal isn't notable, so it makes no sense to point that redirect to an article that shouldn't exist. If there's confusion that needs to be addressed, you can use {{confused journal}} to clarify things, e.g.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Headbomb: I'm unconvinced that that template is acceptable under WP:HATNOTE, as it does not actually disambiguate from any other article. Like I said above, the solution is to delete the ambiguous redirects, not add a noncompliant hatnote. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hatnotes are notes, they don't exist solely to disambiguate to existing articles and aren't required to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. The journal that appropriated this title is most certainly not notable and most likely will never be (unless they commit such stupid errors that they'll get coverage in the main press). It looks like an OMICS clone. I think that it is important to make clear that this title was a reputed journal before it got its current name. Headbomb's hatnote seems to do that very well. HATNOTE specifically states that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is one such case. --Randykitty (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Randkitty, to help readers find good info, and understand different meanings, without giving over-exposure of current but poorer topics with the name. DMacks (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roads in Madagascar[edit]

This currently targets a section in Transport in Madagascar that no longer exists (though it could be pointed to the section on "roadways" fairly easily). I'm bringing this here because there exists a List of roads in Madagascar, and I think that this topic would better direct to the dedicated list article about roads in Madagascar rather than the general article on transportation in the island nation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dorand[edit]

At least two other potential targets (the Dorand AR and the Dorand State Forest). This one should probably just be disambiguated. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed Lestocq (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, I think this page would function better as a disambig, per nom. Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 00:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, the suggested targets are WP:PARTIALDABs and not known as just Dorand. The aircraft series, along with the Dorand DO.1 were named after Émile Dorand anyway, and listed at the current target. The state forest may be hatnoted from the current target. Jay 💬 12:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another thought to consider: Emile's son, René Dorand, has five mentions in Wikipedia, and is a contender for his own article, which is why I redlinked him in the Emile Dorand article. Lestocq (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is still about the disambiguation page, see WP:REDDAB. As the mentions are in multiple articles, it would be best to wait for Rene to have his standalone article, (or a redirect, which doesn't look a possibility). Jay 💬 20:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andean man[edit]

Maybe retarget to Culture of South America (the most suitable potential target I could find after some digging) or something similar, but probably delete as unclear and unhelpful. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: I was expecting this to have some article history, but having none and being an odd term with little usage, deletion seems preferable here. TartarTorte 02:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Andean Peoples redirects to Inca Empire; Andean culture is a dab page (tagged as being in need of a broad concept article) listing six different indigenous groups; Andean civilizations is an article about the pre-Inca cultures and societies. I think any of these would make a better target than the present one (I don't have a preference between that and Culture of South America). Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The are also some articles about gender roles in various cultures, which would probably be the best choice except we still are lacking one for South America/Inca Empire/Andes/Peru/what have you. If such an article were created, this redirect would be slightly more appropriate. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak retarget: to Inca Empire; otherwise delete. 141Pr 17:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marquess of Lorne[edit]

Retarget to Duke of Argyll. Campbell was not the only person in history to use the title, and in fact there is a current holder. I would be amendable to simply making a disambiguation, that the title most commonly refers to the 9th Duke, but may also refer to the subsidiary title in general.--Estar8806 (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Landing platform vessel[edit]

Now that the ship has been scrapped, it is unlikely that someone searching for these words will be looking for this article. It is more likely that they will be looking for operational vessels. The use of {{R from alternative name}} was incorrect from the outset. The ship appeared in FleetMon and Vessel Tracker as "LPV", not Landing Platform Vessel. News sources gave the name as LPV and expanded the acronym as an explanation. Deleting the redirect will allow the lengthy hatnote to be removed from the article. -- Tim Starling (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: I moved this to the top of the page. I hope that'll help. Regards, SONIC678 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sky kids[edit]

Bundle with the Sky Kids RfD From Bassie f (his talk page) 00:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Sky Kids after the discussion of that redirect closes.
From Bassie f (his talk page) 19:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 25[edit]

Sky Kids[edit]

This redirect should be turned into a DAB page with 3 entries that are already on the hatnote of the current target. (Sky Kids (TV channel), The Flyboys (film), and also the current target and Sky Kid in See also) From Bassie f (his talk page) 21:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SQUIDWARD[edit]

Similar page with the same spelling but with two exclamation marks after it was deleted per a previous deletion discussion. Nothing notable about this capitalization, other than the fact that Mr. Krabs yells Squidward's name in some episodes. WP:COSTLY redirect. Colgatepony234 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Gd[edit]

confusing, too many uses for "gd" including commons:template:gd Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Signpost/Quick Start[edit]

Redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion. jp×g 00:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP WP:RHARMFUL. This nomination is a possible solution in search of a problem, especially the redirect is a {{R from move}}, doesn't qualify for {{Db-subpage}}, is in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (which is not as stringent on page titles as the article space), and has existed for nearly a decade. Deletion has the potential to create more harm than good. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changed from WP:CHEAP to WP:RHARMFUL per the comments below, and since it falls more in line with my stance on this. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Steel1943: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates is a zoo which I have been trying to clean up for weeks. The reason I am doing this on my own is because there are basically no other Signpost maintainers: everyone else who's tried to make sense of how this extremely baroque system of templates works has gotten exhausted and quit. I am not psychic, so I can't say why for sure, but my guess is because it is impossible to figure out how the template system works. It is not documented anywhere. The only option is to go through about a half-dozen different PrefixIndexes for completely random variations on template prefixes. Within these prefixindexes, it is furthermore basically impossible (without opening every single one and checking WLH individually) which templates are in use by current processes, which of them are deprecated, which of them were intended to be used and never implemented, and which of them exist solely because of typos made during the process of creating the template. Here, I am trying to get rid of only the last category, redirects at error titles with no incoming links. For example, you can see a bunch of redirects listed here under Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:. This is not how any actual Signpost templates are formatted: they are either supposed to be at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/ or Template:Signpost/, and sometimes at Wikipedia:Signpost/Templates/. There are literally no pages that invoke these misnamed redirects, and they should never have existed. It is completely inconceivable to me that anyone who is writing internal Signpost templates would decide to randomly start moving them between Signpost/Template:, Signpost/Templates/, Wikipedia Signpost/Template:, and Wikipedia Signpost/Templates prefixes, which is the only situation in which these redirects would ever have incoming links. What is the envisioned use case for them? jp×g 03:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Suggestion-featured, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet/temp, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start-end all closed as delete. jp×g 05:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • JPxG, Steel1943, I'm not sure what the full backstory of Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion. is, but given that these discussion all have the same copy-pasted rationale and !vote, could we at least merge them together into a single discussion? signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Rosguill: By all means, go for it. (I wasn't a fan of having to copy/paste my response a bunch of times ...and change a word or two when applicable ... anyways.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...And if only one of my comments are kept in tact, please leave my version of the comment that contains the word "nearly" instead of "over" so it makes sense for all of the redirects. (That version is in the discussion I'm posting this comment in [before any merges occur].) Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @JPxG: As someone who has attempted to clean up redirects (as well as subpages with parent page that were never updated) in the "Wikipedia:" namespace before for weeks on end (seriously, I forget what year I did a bunch of cleanup, but I was at it for almost a month ... such as getting all pages that began with "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" moved to properly renamed WP:XFD titles), I commend your efforts to attempt to get this quest further done as you have been trying. However, this is one of those cases where these redirects have some potential historical value due to their age. My rule of thumb in all of this with everything I've discovered is if the redirect does not qualify for {{Db-subpage}} or is not the result of an editor mistakenly using the "Wikipedia:" namespace instead of the intended namespace (you may be surprised how many editors mistakenly use the "Wikipedia:" namespace instead of the "Draft:" namespace to create new article drafts), then it is probably better to remain instead of being deleted. These redirects do not fall under either one of my aforementioned situations, so I am under the belief that their deletion will cause more harm than good. (However, with all this being said, I'm in no position or have time to adequately validate that these redirects are targeting the most applicable page; there may be some rationale to retarget some of these if a more applicable page exists, but again per what I said, deletion should really not be an option here.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Steel1943: I agree with you on preserving historical pages. For example, I have been keeping almost all of the unused Signpost pages from 2005 in a kind of special museum, and have been fixing all the pages from 2005 to make them actually readable. For these pages, though, I don't think that any such historical record exists: the history for Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-block-end-v2 has only a single revision from 2017 when the redirect was created. The whole source text was generated automatically by a script, as well as the edit summary TheDJ moved page Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-block-end-v2 to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end-v2: align with naming conventions. jp×g 21:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No incoming links and the group and individual that work on the group of pages, deem it to be a burden for maintenance. Since the "cheap" essay above was quoted, I'll counter with WP:COSTLY. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Gonnym: Fair enough ... changed to WP:RHARMFUL since I definitely linked the wrong essay precedent. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:RDELETE points #1 and #2 are very similar to what jp×g was talking about. Gonnym (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per my comments above, I disagree either of them apply. Too much potential to break stuff be deleting these redirects. Retargeting to any more applicable page(s) may be an alternative, if that applies. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If they are unused, nothing will break, and if it somehow does break, we can fix it. But keeping these, we know for 100% that it makes life extremely harder for those that actually use this set of templates. The pros for me outweigh any theoretical cons. Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some of these redirects are over 10 years old, most of which are {{R from move}}s, which makes the claim of calling these are "theoretical cons" less likely. Safest thing here would be to makes sure none of these redirects have incoming links (which apparently has already happened), make sure their new/current targets target pages that do not have the same parent page (which seems to have already happened), and then don't pay these redirects any more mind while retaining their historical integrity for those who may have used/needed these titles in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sexual activity[edit]

There's quite a large literature relating to non-human sexual activity, to such an extent that I don't think that Human sexual activity is going to be the primary topic here. I'm unsure if this would be better served as a dab page or with some other resolution, but I don't think the current status makes sense in light of WP:PTOPIC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BD2412: I don't think article titles need to be "human-centric." The articles about the human brain, human digestive system and human anatomy are specifically about humans, so they include human in the title to avoid confusion. Jarble (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have an article on Animal sexual activity at all (we do have Animal sexual behaviour), so perhaps humans are more inclined to assume that sexual activity is more of a human function, and sexual behavior is more of an animal function. BD2412 T 16:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm increasingly thinking this should be a dab between Animal sexual behaviour and human sexual activity, though I'm not wedded to the idea. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The main thing that comes to mind here is to retarget to Sex (disambiguation), whose first section (§ Biology and behaviour) disambiguates these two terms and others like Sexual intercourse. As an aside, I've been thinking for a while now that that DAB page should be moved to the base title, and the current article at Sex moved to something like Sex (trait). The vast majority of uses of the word "sex" in common parlance are in reference to some sort of sexual activity, to the extent that the trait called sex is often disambiguated as "biological sex" (a misnomer but oh well). Academic sources meanwhile are decidedly equivocal in their usage of the word. But again, that would need an RM. (Oh also, oppose any move of Human sexual activity to Sexual activity without an RM, since such a proposal failed at RM in 2017. If there's a desire for such a move here, this should be closed as "Refer to RM" rather than "Move".) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Sex (disambiguation) per Tamzin. A7V2 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as is, the hatnote is sufficient. —Kusma (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: the current target is of interest in many subjects, while the other possible target is mostly only of interest in biology. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The current target is clearly the primary topic. Mast303 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending towards keep in the last few !votes, but still a bit short of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Jedi survivors of Order 66[edit]

There is no such list. It would run afoul of our current policies on fancruft. Neither targeted section still exists. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of List of Jedi survivors of Order 66?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Revert. The content originally here was boldly merged to Great Jedi Purge in 2009, part that article was in turn boldly merged to Clone Wars (Star Wars) by TenTonParasol in 2016, however despite the edit summaries suggesting a full merge only the further reading section seems to have been copied (and that is still present). I recommend reverting to the article content and having a discussion about what, if anything, should be merged and if so what the best place to merge it to should be as I can find no evidence this has happened at any point. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Ah, 2016, when I did things less carefully. As far as I can tell, the content is housed between Jedi, Clone Wars (Star Wars) at a more high level summary level, and various The Clone Wars 2008 articles because, well, as the nominator remarks, all this was fancruft and related fannish bloat. I have no opinions either way as to whether a formal discussion should take place. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both Another pair of old Star Wars redirects with a complex history, which appears to partly have been due to one of the old Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) policies. The second redirect should be deleted at a minimum due to the capitalization, but I otherwise agree with Thryduulf's opinion on reverting. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete both per nom, no such list exists. Delete the 2nd due to the capitalization per Super Goku. On the page history of the first, there is nothing to retain, as the content that was moved as Great Jedi Purge#List of survivors in 2009 was unsourced, and was reverted within 30 minutes by EEMIV with comment rm good-faith addition - -this is uncited, and lists of survivors/deaths have been points of dispute on this page. with refs, this (still-trivia) might be okay to include. The merge of Great Jedi Purge to Clone Wars (Star Wars) by TenTonParasol in 2016 is not relevant to this RfD, however a new RfD may be started for that redirect. Jay 💬 20:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disting.[edit]

Delete as its purpose is unclear (as it happens, we have an article on Disting). An anonymous username, not my real name 19:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete Pointless redirect with the full stop and, legally speaking, I've never heard or seen it ever shortened to that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is apparently here for the usage in law textbooks and case reports. Someone with access to Raistrick's Index to Legal Citations and Abbreviations might find it documented there. But delete, we do not need it in Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: assuming this is an actual, unambiguous abbreviation then this redirect helps the reader seeking to find out what the abbr. stands for. J947edits 21:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep per J947; I'm seeing no good reason to delete here. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per J947. No reason to delete an unambiguous abbreviation that is apparently used in reliable sources. A7V2 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Switching to weak keep due to potential ambiguity with Disting (I should have more carefully read the nomination!). Certainly a hatnote would be a good idea. A7V2 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per J947 as a plausible abbreviation. MusiBedrock (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though this may be an abbreviation for "distinguishing", there is a good chance that a new-ish editor could be trying to link Disting at the end of the sentence, but accidentally include the period their link ... Which would then obviously go to the wrong article. However, in most cases, consensus results in the deleting redirects that end with a period. (For a recent related example, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16#Catholicism..) Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's not a normal full stop misnomer – abbrvs. end as such. J947edits 21:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      You are correct, but in this case, since Distinguishing seems to define the use of a word in certain contexts and not as a proper subject (such as a person [link the shorthand abbreviations used for several botanists and zoologists] or entity's proper, capitalized name), the amount of harm this redirect creates seems to outweigh its usefulness. We can place a hatnote on Disting if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Correct uses trump incorrect uses, and I doubt that incorrect use would be much used. Moreover, a reader aiming for disting will likely end up finding that article anyway, whereas one searching for the abbreviation is very unlikely to. J947edits 22:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Going by the redirect creator's name, this appears to be law-related, but as the target doesn't talk about this abbreviation, delete as not helpful and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It didn't help me, I don't have a copy of Raistrick's Index to Legal Citations and Abbreviations, we don't have anything at wiktionary, and I couldn't get anything from an external search either. Page xvi of the Preface of this book says "disting." stands for "distinguished". If this is going to be an avoided redirect, the reader will wonder what the word has to do with the target. Hence delete as confusing, and as having a period at the end, if we're looking at non-abbreviation usage. Jay 💬 03:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twittergate[edit]

Recently been used to refer to Twitter Files Investigation (which is currently up for deletion, but the topic is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia) ([8]). So I can imagine users searching for the term for that topic. Perhaps at least a hatnote if not a dab page? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is far more important because it's a detailed case of a conspiracy-like outcome from a non-conspiracy juxtaposition of events.
"#twittergate" very clearly shows how the statistical leaning of tech workers and age groups towards one or the other political party can lead to real-world impacts like moderation imbalance that snowball into $44Bn philanthropic grand gestures. Unfairness accusations like this come up all the time on all social media platforms and very few of these accusations have this level of investigation (or impact) to shine light on what is happening. Losing this from wikipedia would be beyond merely tragic.
Objectively, tech workers are pro-liberal and High-earning positions like executives are pro-GOP due to economic special interest. (One quick-glance visualized data set but I could, of course, flood you with research supporting this key statement: http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ ).
I think this page needs to be kept and heavily edited and expanded because the IQ/Education impact in employment on politics is historically impactful and culturally highly relevant. If I felt I was worthy of the task, I'd take it on myself. Unfortunately I do data science, not writing so I'd be starting from no experience. Skyleach (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DABIFY It can easily refer to both now. RoostTC(ping me!) 06:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I doubt if it can be converted to a dab. There is no mention of twittergate in any article of enwiki. External search also brings up a 2009 German election incident. Jay 💬 02:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Steel, except that search results won't help now because we currently don't have a mention on enwiki. Wait for mentions. Jay 💬 03:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this was last relisted and voted on 17 days back, there are still no mentions on enwiki. Jay 💬 15:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per Jay. Let Wikipedia's search results help readers find what they are looking for, considering a dab would not make sense in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: late rally for delete means this one's going to a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Dabification, the Musk scandal is the main topic in searches at the moment, but it's too soon to declare it the primary topic. Rusalkii (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Twitter Files. This page had no activity prior to December 2, it had 7 hits all year up to that date, and while there have been a few spikes in readership on Anthony Weiner sexting scandals in that time there has been no corresponding spike on the redirect. This suggests that its use to refer to that subject has been long forgotten. However, on December 3, views on the redirect spiked to 35, then over 100 within a few days (it's settled to about 10/day now), more than an RFD typically generates. What happened on December 3? The first installment of what we now call the Twitter Files was published late in the day before, but in time for evening interest in the Western hemisphere which lags a few hours behind UTC. We can make a reasonable assumption, then, that readers searching for "Twittergate" are currently looking for information on the Twitter Files, and that's where the redirect should point. We could add a hatnote to the Anthony Weiner scandals, or better would be to add a hatnote to a main article for Category:Twitter controversies but there doesn't seem to be one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loophole (1981 film)/Archive[edit]

Was merged into the target in 2010. I don't see any obvious redlinks to move this to, so would suggest move without redirect to Talk:Loophole (1981 film)/Attribution/1 or suchlike, and tag with {{parallel version}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion of Jay's suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Move to a mainspace title per Jay. Pages that are {{R with history}} for article content should be in the article space, not talk page space ... which obfuscates what the history of the page is supposed to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suzmites[edit]

No reference in target article and a Google search didn't turn this up as an alternative name. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suzmites is noted as a junior synonym of Onegia in The list of Ediacaran genera. Onegia is a synonym of Pteridinium, so if I were to redirect it to Suzmites it would have a double redirect. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus It would help considerably if you could cite some reliable external sources which support your assertion. The Wikipedia page you named does not exist either. I would expect any page which is the subject of a WP:REDIRECT to mention any synonym and to cite a good, up-to-date source to substantiate that synonymy. None of us are mind-readers, nor experts in Ediacaran synonymy. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of Ediacaran genera is what I wanted to say. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if you're looking to know why I made those redirects check the page. Multiple taxa are listed as synonyms of already existing taxa (or synonyms of synonyms of already existing taxa in the case of Suzmites). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solangi[edit]

I cleared out an article here that was a duplicate of Solanki (clan), but I am not sure is this should instead redirect to the surname Solanki. There are notable people with the name, but they are currently not listed at that SIA. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 18:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This RfD is also linked to the outcome of Talk:Solanki#Requested move 17 December 2022. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 18:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: LaundryPizza03, please propose a specific action to be taken.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Legoktm: Retarget to Solanki or disambiguate, depending on the outcome of the RM. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the RM has been closed and the following changes have happened. The "Solanki" mentioned elsewhere at this RfD is now Solanki (name) and the RM discussion link is now Talk:Solanki (name)#Requested move 17 December 2022. What we now have at Solanki is a dab created today by ModernDayTrilobite. No change in my vote though. Jay 💬 02:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If Solangi is a historical name for Solanki, then this should be mentioned at some article. The pre-BLAR content says they are Muslim, whereas the current target suggests they are Hindus. Solanki has no mention of a name as Solangi, so that would be an incorrect target. External searches come up with "Solangi are not Solanki" suggesting this is controversial, probably because of caste or religion representations. Restore and discuss at AfD if there is no clarity. Jay 💬 07:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: "Solangi" seems like a plausible alternative spelling or misspelling of Solange. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Solange (disambiguation) as a plausible misspelling. I'm not sure that restoring and sending to AfD would be appropriate, as there's no content worth restoring IMO, and it would likely end up being deleted (or possibly redirected) there anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearing the Jan 2 page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Anthroponymize (convert to WP:ANTHRO surname page) if there are notable people with this exact surname, otherwise keep/retarget to Solanki (clan) as an {{R with history}}. Note that the only source referenced in the former Solangi article is titled "Solanki" and only uses that spelling, and is also a WordPress blog. I don't support treating this as a misspelling of "Solange" - E and I are very far apart on a QWERTY keyboard, and there is already an attestation that this is a valid (if possibly controversial) alternate spelling to "Solanki". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four on the floor (transmission)[edit]

The section this targets was removed, and this is no-longer discussed anywhere in the article or anywhere else I could find except for on the disambiguation page Four on the floor. I think this should be deleted unless mention can be re-added (or if there's a better target I missed). A7V2 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to gear stick. The four-on-floor material was deleted from the manual transmission article with the rationale of "trimming to avoid WP:FORK- this level of detail is appropriate for the dedicated article". The rationale was sound but that material was never moved to the dedicated article. —  AjaxSmack  03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - if retargeted, mention would need to be added, and I'm not sure where in the article that could be done? A7V2 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses, where this term is mentioned and briefly described. Also remove the circular redirect that links there. CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @CycloneYoris: Your suggested target is a disambiguation page, and if the link is removed there, the entry will be deleted anyway. Jay 💬 06:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jay: A reference needs to be added there as to prevent the entry from being deleted. Although it's not the most suitable target, it will inform readers about this term and its meaning. CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:DABREF says not to do that. Jay 💬 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then rewrite the entry as suggested by Rosguill below, providing a link to the Manual transmission article. CycloneYoris talk! 10:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses, where the entry could be rewritten as Four on the floor, a type of four-speed manual transmission with a floor-mounted shifter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talkcontribs) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to gear stick per Ajax and tag as {{R without mention}}. Jay 💬 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses and rewrite per Rosguill. {{R without mention}}s should be self explanatory; this is not. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BDD: Why do you say {{R without mention}}s should be self explanatory? Jay 💬 03:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jay: Because otherwise, they're likely to confuse readers. I often think of searches like a reference desk encounter. Suppose a user asks for works on "Barrack Obama". The librarian says, "Sure, we have works about Barack Obama." Most likely the user understands what happened, i.e., that they made a slight error. Now imagine the user is asking for "four on the floor", and the response is "Here's what we have about manual transmission." The user may wonder what the relationship is, or (erroneously in this case) assume it's a synonym. Much more so if their search term is not in any way used in the page they arrive at. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BDD: If the redirect is a synonym there would (or should) be an Rcat that says the redirect is a synonym. We really cannot control what the reader assumes. But how does that mandate that {{R without mention}}s should be self-explanatory. I see the tag just as what it is - a redirect term that is not mentioned, and once it is targged as such, someone needs to add it to the target, or remove the Rcat if they find it not possible. Jay 💬 07:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can more concisely state my position here as "a user should understand why they end up where they do and/or be happy with the results". For this redirect, I think that will only apply for users who remember this rhyming phrase but not what it refers to—not zero, but probably a small portion of searchers. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to whatever page has a definition of the term (or any sort of relevant content): at the moment, that's Four on the floor#Other uses (to be rewritten as Rosguill suggested). – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses per BDD and Uanfala.MusiBedrock (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete There is no logical reason to redirect to a disambiguation page entry that fails WP:DABMENTION. Nobody has attempted to restore the article content about theis term, either. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural involved relist to clear the old RfD page from December 19.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Cool Guy[edit]

BLAR'd article. The contents aren't merged into the main article (and don't fit within Wikipedia in general), and the target page doesn't have anything that may fall under it. Delete unless there's a better target. Randi Moth (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete I'm fine with deletion for this one since there are no referenced info that can be challenged anyways. This ought to have been prodded back then.--Lenticel (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manar Group[edit]

The Manar Group article (which described it as a group of islands in the Torres Strait and named the individual islands) was deleted in 2011 as having no sources, but was left as a redirect to the channel where the individual islands are loosely located. However, 10+ years later, I have looked quite diligently for any mentions of this island group in both current and historical sources including historical maps and I still can't find any evidence of this name for this set of islands. Because it has been used in a navbox, it is now in many Wikipedia articles. It has made its way into Wikidata. Surely it is time to delete this non-place. I'm more than happy to retain it, even reinstate it as an article, if someone can find any evidence that this name ever existed. Kerry (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Sexiest Man in Jamaica[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close

The Sexiest Zoo in America[edit]

Offensive redirect IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 04:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak delete I can attest to this nickname in third-party sources, such as [11], but it is not currently in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep given it looks an unambiguous term. In my opinion, monikers like such don't need to be mentioned in the article to be helpful – rather, the very fact of the target normally gives the reader the information they're after. J947edits 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural note: nominator has withdrawn, but the discussion continues as a delete stands. J947edits 09:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:KFCBOX[edit]

KFCBOX was redirect deletion to User:UBX/KFCBOX Navajcmer (🔔📝) 04:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Userbox created in the wrong location. Existing transclusions have been updated. No transclusions of the redirect exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 24[edit]

Katara (cultural village)[edit]

Completely useless as a search term due to Katara and Katara Cultural Village, and implausible because of the disambiguator; the disambiguator is also wrong – Wikipedia doesn't think that this is a cultural village (not a village in the first place), it's a commercial and cultural district of Doha. —Alalch E. 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox book redirect[edit]

All 4 of these are remnants from a decade ago. They are unused and pointless. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sneaker (computer security)[edit]

"Sneaker" isn't mentioned on the target page and there's no source saying that it's a synonym of the target. I also couldn't find any indication of this with internet searches. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Doctorwhoaudiobook[edit]

Unused and pointless redirect. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jessé) (singer)[edit]

Unlikely search term. Page was created and subsequently moved by the author Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • SpeedySlowly delete per CSD R3 (I've tagged it); it's perfectly ok to delete, as it's just from a pagemove. Duckmather (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC); amended 02:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constance Marten[edit]

This entry for a person currently in the news was created as redirect to the Wikipedia article about her deceased grandmother "for now", but this target article didn't mention Constance Marten at the time, hasn't since, and may never. That her granddaughter is currently being sought by the police is presumably considered inappropriate as a minor biographical detail. Belbury (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created the redirect to discourage others from starting an article, or should someone do so, then I could pick it up on my watchlist and turn it back into a redirect. Edwardx (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commodity operating systems[edit]

The word "commodity" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is supposed to represent or identify. Also, the singular version of this redirect, Commodity operating system, does not exist and has never existed. In addition, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commodity operating systems, a discussion which occurred in 2005 that resulted in this title becoming a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Searching off-site, the plural and singular bring up a number of results including academic literature, some of which are referenced in a number of Wikipedia articles. On-site, the plural is used on Software-defined mobile network and EROS (microkernel), however neither of these explains the term. The singular is used on RTLinux and Virgil D. Gligor, and neither of these explains the term either.
Weak delete, until relevant content is added somewhere. There should be no prejudice against creating it again if content has been added. – Scyrme (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terror Train (movie)[edit]

Not needed ★Trekker (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bharti surname[edit]

This redirect is in a non-standard format (should be "Bharti (surname)"), but in any case I think it's unnecessary. Bharti is a DAB, and there are only 2 people listed with Bharti as a surname on it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]