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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Easy and cheap → Digital rights management#"Easy and cheap"  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

...really? the target section currently exists, sure, but any mentions of this description are unsourced, in passing, and seemingly unnecessary. honestly, i really can't think of a way this redirect wouldn't be at the very least extremely surprising cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Trilemma#The project-management trilemma. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project management triangle (linked from the trilemma article) might be a better target. Tevildo (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a little late to note, but i'm kinda not following that. "quick" doesn't necessarily mean "easy", and it's still only two thirds of the Funny Triangle™ cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Delete per nom, not sufficiently close to the canonical formulation to be useful. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could just as easily refer to anything else that is both easy and cheap Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G7 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INTERNETPROCTOL → WP:IPADDRESS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

After creating this redirect I realized that I spelled the P-word wrong. It's supposed to be Protocol not Proctol (which apparently isn't even a word), so I'm nominating it for deletion.

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MeTV PlusMeTV Plus → MeTV#MeTV+  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

OWaunTon (talk · contribs) blanked this redirect and then sent it to AfD, which is not the correct way to delete redirects. Their rationale follows:

An alternate redirect was created a while ago MeTV+ and I blanked the page and is now unneeded.
— User:OWaunTon 17:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Both subsequent comments pointed out that AfD is not the right venue for deleting redirects, but of particular note is the comment by Lord Bolingbroke (talk · contribs):

Speedy keep. Wrong venue, and this redirect is a perfectly plausible search term – it's even used on MeTV's official website. No way this would be deleted even if taken to RfD.
— User:Lord Bolingbroke 19:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Alas, my interpretation of WP:PROCEDURAL is that this has to come to RfD. This is entirely a procedural nomination, and indeed I am if anything a keep for the reasons Lord Bolingbroke gave. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree with your interpretation of WP:PROCEDURAL but I also agree that this is clearly a plausible search term and should be a Speedy Keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not according to the actual logo itself and not able as "MeTV Plus", for example, Ion Plus has the word "plus" in it and not the symbol. OWaunTon (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This has absolutely no chance of being removed; it's the name of the network and we generally append 'Plus' redirects on any channel/service with this name as many searches for these channels/services inside/outside Wikipedia tend to use '(service name) plus' rather than the plus symbol, which is a common search modifier. This isn't going anywhere. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per my comment at the AfD. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Swing the hairy ones → wikt:svänga sina lurviga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a swedish dictionary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not seem like a useful Wiktionary redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted as Talk:...Re (film)#Requested move 14 December 2024 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Re → ...Re (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

...Re (film) was moved away from this title after a March 2016 discussion; a followup April 2016 RfD ended without consensus. It was then boldly retargeted to the disambiguation page Re in May 2016, with an explanation on the talk page, but this was reverted in 2018. I personally think it should redirect to Re (or else the film should be moved back to this title), for the reasons laid out at WP:MISPLACED, but the history here is complicated enough that I want to make sure there's consensus for this change. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move the film here at it appears to be the only thing called this per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Either Move ...Re (film) back to ...Re (in which case, a hatnote to the dab page will suffice), or move ...Re (film) to Re (film), if you're not happy with the stylization being a part of either the article title or the running text. In either case, the current redirect should point to the film as an apparently typical stylization at the very least, and since nothing on the dab page would be prepended with 3 dots. The current situation is silly. If the current redirect is pointing to the film, then the film should be sitting at the base title. I don't really understand how the move discussion came to the conclusion it did. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –We shouldn't be moving a page based purely on an RfD discussion that goes against a previous RM. If people want the film moved to this title, an RM should be started. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close per Cremastra. Most of the time, we perform moves at RfD, but this appears to have RM history, which should ideally go through RM. Jay 💬 11:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Withdraw. [non-admin closure. Will change redirect target to Andrew Gower (disambiguation) per discussion at WT:VG and recommendation of Axem Titanium, see final comment.]

• Andrew Gower (programmer)Andrew Gower (programmer) → Jagex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Previous discussions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_29#Andrew_Gower
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Gower_(5th_nomination)

Although possibly justified previously, this redirect is now inappropriate. Despite founding the company Jagex and launching RuneScape being his most well known achievement, Andrew Gower (programmer) is not synonymous with Jagex, having left their board of directors over 14 years ago.

His current game Brighter Shores has no involvement with Jagex at all, but everywhere that Andrew's name is linked on Wikipedia (confusingly, including on the Brighter Shores page), it points back to Jagex. Brighter Shores was released in early access relatively recently, on 6 November 2024, seeing signs of early success.

Brighter Shores' full name is "Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores" (displaying that name on boot), in the same style as "Sid Meier's Civilization". It is likely that a person might search for "Andrew Gower" to find out who the title is referencing, and get redirected to Jagex, a company that has no involvement whatsoever with Brighter Shores.

At a minimum, I would recommend that this redirect no longer target the Jagex page. However, it would also be inappropriate if the redirect were changed to Brighter Shores, or a potential Fen Research article/redirect (currently a red link), since when Andrew Gower (programmer) is referenced in the context of discussing RuneScape on Wikipedia, it would then redirect to his latest project instead of an article about the programmer, which is not very expected.

Per WP:RFD#DELETE, my opinion is that this redirect violates conditions 2 and 10.

• It has potential to cause confusion that Andrew Gower is still affiliated with Jagex, and that Brighter Shores is a Jagex game.
• The current target article Jagex "contains virtually no information on the subject", and as evidenced by the redirect's long edit history, "could plausibly be expanded into an article".

Per WP:RFD#KEEP, the redirect should also not be out-right deleted, since it includes a "potentially useful page history" for an article about a person who has made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

I'd recommend that an article about the programmer Andrew Gower be created in place of this redirect, similar to other well-known game programmers with multiple projects (such as Sid Meier, John Carmack, etc.).

— Hubcapp (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the wrong venue to (functionally) do a deletion review of the last AFD. I don't think recreating the Andrew Gower article is a viable outcome of this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies. You'd be more experienced and knowledgeable on the subject of AFDs and proper procedure than me. It was not obvious (or documented on Wikipedia:DRV nor here on Wikipedia:RFD) that I should create a new deletion review for an article that has not technically been deleted, but instead turned into a redirect. How would you recommend I proceed from here? Thanks, — Hubcapp (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For what its worth, the reason I originally removed the redirect and re-created the article was due to this very reason, he's not linked to Jagex anymore, and he's just released his first game post-Jagex, which was received decent media coverage. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, "circumstances have changed to due to recent events" and it's now a problematic redirect that needs to be changed (WP:RFD#DELETE 2 & 10). Will wait a day or so for confirmation that it is only appropriate to address this issue through WP:DRV, considering that the article was changed to a redirect through the AFD process in 2021, several years ago under different circumstance. If it's improper to discuss how the redirect is inappropriate here because of its prior AFD history, I will add a bullet point near the top of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header that redirects created as a result of the AFD process should not be discussed here. — Hubcapp (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not clear that opening a new DRV on a 3 year old AFD decision is the correct move. I suggest posting a discussion at WT:VG to get a better sense for how the larger project is feeling about Gower today in terms of notability. As I said before, a consensus is needed to overturn a previous consensus so more eyeballs are better. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds correct, thanks for your advice. I have created this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Re-evaluating_Andrew_Gower_(programmer)_as_a_redirect per your recommendation. — Hubcapp (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the direction of the discussion at WTVG, maybe you'd consider either withdrawing this RFD, or changing the proposal to retarget to Andrew Gower (disambiguation)? The latter can be done as a WP:BOLD change if you withdraw (supported by myself and others already at the aforementioned discussion). Axem Titanium (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of the inappropriate target, or essentially Move without redirect to draftspace where it can go through AfC and await approval. Jay 💬 07:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Discussion of this redirect at WT:VG has been stagnant for about a week, with those involved seeming to support changing the redirect target to Andrew Gower (disambiguation) "as an interim solution". A candidate article may or may not be in the process of being drafted by User:Quuxbazbarfoo, who commented at that talk page. — Hubcapp (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Trim#Transport. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim levelTrim level → Trim level (automotive)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Trim level → Trim#Transport – The phrase "Trim level" is also used in aviation as a command given in the cockpit to trim the aircraft to a level flight attitude using the Trim wheel to move the Trim tab, so this is an ambiguous term and should redirect to the DAB page of Trim#Transport. Raladic (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (that is, don't change the target). In aviation, we might talk about a trimmed airspeed or angle of attack, but not a trim level. Level has a specific meaning in aviation, and it's not something that's (directly) affected by the trim of the aircraft. Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You most certainly trim for straight and level flight, sometimes shortened to the command to "trim level". Not Flight level, trimming for straight and level flight, this is one of the first basic maneuvers pilots learn during private pilot training.

  The final part of Straight and level flight is to trim the plane to maintain level flight attitude (after adjusting pressure on the yoke and adjusting power, you trim to maintain the level attitude to relieve pressure of the yoke. Task VIII.A: Straight and Level Flight | Mark Berry - CFI Notebook, FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (3C) Chapter 3. Raladic (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Raladic. The automotive topic is about an options package, while the aviation topic is acutally about trim -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. The target is ambiguous, as I accept the argument above that that trim level can be used in aviation. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Ground sloth. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Giant ground slothGiant ground sloth → Megatherium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Megatherium is tied with Eremotherium in size (with Lestodon being not much smaller), so this isn't an unambiguous redirect. In the academic literature, "giant ground sloth" is used for basically any sloth of considerable size, regardless as to whether they are truly elephantine (e.g. [1] [2]). Many of the current redirect uses have nothing to do with Megatherium, making this redirect misleading. I would suggest redirecting to ground sloth Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to ground sloth per nomination. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. That article does seem to cover the topic more generally. Fieari (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Openptail g → G#Typographic variants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

is it supposed to be a misinput? p is close to - in qwerty keyboards, but that doesn't seem like a plausible mistake cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible typo. Nardog (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nardog. Considering that Menchi created Open-tail gOpen-tail g four minutes after this one, I think that was probably the intended title for the redirect. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep In 8 years, a total of 62 hits, which is not very much, and this looks like a low impact redirect. It's also harmless, and not ambiguous. Would wikipedia be improved for those 62 people if we lacked this redirect? There's no reason to go around deleting redirects out of some sort of sense of tidiness, that's what WP:CHEAP is all about. We needn't, and shouldn't, go around creating every single typo possible, but I just don't see a reason to go out of our way to clean them up either if they help someone and don't interfere with anything. Fieari (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no reason to go around keeping useless redirects either. "Would wikipedia be improved for those 62 people if we lacked this redirect?" Yes! Never mind the fact that we have no idea how people got to the redirect page (was it an editor doing maintenance? Was it someone that got prompted by a drop-down match that would have found the normal one anyway?). While one redirect may be cheap, millions are not; and every little bit we can do to clean them up helps. As was recently pointed out (in I believe an RFD that you participated in recently), some editors do check the "what links here" for redirects, and having a lot of extra useless ones wastes editor time. Unless there's some particular special reason, random typos like this should never be redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per common sense. See immediately above for more detail. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to LGBTQ in Chile. Jay 💬 16:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• LGBT in ChileLGBT in Chile → LGBTQ topics in Chile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to LGBTQ in Chile for wp:consistency. Regardless of the RM outcome, if moved, a bot automatically retargets it to where LGBTQ in Chile will be retargeted. Also see WP:CONSUB and WP:STATUSQUO. --MikutoH ^talk! 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Lewisguile (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to LGBTQ in Chile – omitting the "Q" doesn't indicate a different topic. I think this could have been done boldly, by the way. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I questioned myself when doing this boldly is that retargeting to a DAB requires the links to it be changed, which has several. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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