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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) feminist🩸 (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Land of flowers → Florida  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

extremely vague, maybe delete or dabify? Duckmather (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda vague; it could also refer to the Netherlands. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 20:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DABify Pascua Florida includes the statement Florida is now known as the "land of flowers" because of the connection to Ponce de Leon and Pascua Florida., cited to (Hatch, Jane M. (1978). The American book of days. The H. W. Wilson Company. ISBN 0-8242-0593-6. OCLC 953162536.). I do not have access to that book, but it looks like a reliable source for this redirect. The first page of Google hits for "land of flowers" includes mentions of books by Elisabetta Dami, the Netherlands, Zamboanga City, Florida, and some fantasy fandom sites. - Donald Albury 21:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• disambig per the aboves -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have drafted a Disambiguation page at the current redirect. I put the Netherlands at the top as a nigh-WP:PTOPIC, based on google results, but our article on Netherlands doesn't even include this nickname, so should that be changed? Fieari (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as generally vague. Disambiguation would be highly inappropriate here; it's for things that could reasonably be the titles of articles, not a listing of every place that shares the same, common nickname. A search for "land of flowers" finds an awful lot of matches, referring to places and other things, many of which claims seem to be unsourced, and many of which hits are omitted from the proposed dab page. A dab page which would impede the normal in-wiki search function...let it do its job. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above. Enix150 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2025 (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 keep (nominator withdrawal). (non-admin closure) Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2021 British Figure Skating Championships2021 British Figure Skating Championships → British Figure Skating Championships  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There were no championships held in 2021 owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it would still be helpful for people who didn't know that, as the target article explicitly mentions that "The 2021 British Championships were also cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic." Plant🌱man (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to the #History section that specifically mentions this fact. Plant🌱man (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to the #History section per Plantman. This is a plausible search term as not everyone will know the 2021 event was cancelled (especially the further away we get from Covid times) and there will be lots of references to them from when they were expected to be held. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refine as per others. A sensible redirect and keeping the redirect preserves the relevant categories too. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2025 (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 Vertebrate#Physical. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Vertebrate anatomyVertebrate anatomy → Vertebrate#Anatomy and morphology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Anatomy of vertebratesAnatomy of vertebrates → Vertebrate#Anatomy and morphology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems that a year after the previous discussion, the current target of these redirects decided during the previous RfD no longer exists. For this reason, I'm now suggesting these be retargeted to Anatomy#Vertebrate anatomy Vertebrate#Physical. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, an updated target exists in the current article, so updating my rationale/target. Not withdrawing this nomination though since these redirects had a previous discussion, thus I am not going to assume I know how controversial or not this change is. Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. All that's needed is to (re)target to Vertebrate#Physical which describes the group's distinctive structural features, just as the previous target within the article did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree! I didn’t even see you writing this while I, too was writing more or less the same thing. Plant🌱man (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Vertebrate#Physical which currently describes vertebrate anatomy in more depth than the proposed target of Anatomy#Vertebrate anatomy. Plant🌱man (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2025 (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 wrong forum. @Slatersteven: This discussion should be taking place on WP:AFD, not WP:RFD. Feel free to renominate on the correct WP:XFD forum if necessary. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DRASTIC → undefined  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A previous discussion had resulted in a Merge, this has now been challenged.

It is a small group that seems to have no independent notability outside of the lab leak theory (which this was merged with) and which has too little, information to really warrant its own page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close. This should not be a REDIRECT for deletion discussion but an ARTICLE for deletion discussion, for wider community participation. I do not see where this was previously discussed by the community resulting in the merge discussion. I also find it strange that OP hasn't provided a link to the discussion where the Merge consensus was established. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2025 (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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dante from the Devil May Cry seriesDante from the Devil May Cry series → Dante (Devil May Cry)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

it's a good thing i'm alone at the moment of writing this, because i think i made a brand new noise from my failed attempt to hold back the laughter. admittedly an extremely weak nom, since it's just for questioning whether or not it would be a good idea to refine it to #other games, since it comes from the "featuring dante from the devil may cry series" meme (though it is missing the first word). hell, i even found a source that i could use to add a mention of the meme, which i'll likely just toss in that section in a couple minutes consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As someone completely unfamiliar with the topic before now, I'm struggling to understand why anybody using this search term would not want to arrive at the article about the character "Dante" from the Devil May Cry series (i.e. the current target)? Sure it's not the usual way we title articles, but it seems unambiguous and we don't require people to know our article titling guidelines before they can find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  hence the question being about refining, as opposed to deleting, retargeting, or whatever else. since it's a meme about dante's appearance in other stuff, it might be a good idea to refine to a fitting section, but there's every chance that that might not be the best idea around for some reason i might be missing, so... consarn _{(featuring knuckles from the knuckles may chuckle series)} 13:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mention added to #other games, by the way, though it's very undercooked (fucking raw, even) and i'll probably regret it by the time my brain wakes up consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 13:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yep, that's the target. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As the creator of this redirect, reading your nomination made me very happy. I think this is probably the funniest thing I've created on Wikipedia, and I am very happy to see two keep-!votes as well. I think the redirect, as a redirect, is fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  50/50 on the question having been entirely misread tbh consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 10:57, 17 March 2025 (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 02:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tramopoline → Bart's Inner Child  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a deliberate misspelling of the world 'trampoline', but the actual quotation 'tramampoline' is not mentioned in this article. This, or a new redirect from 'tramampoline' could instead be targetted to trampoline as a misspelling redirect. Xeroctic (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A reader looking with this specific spelling would be looking for the Simpsons reference, which Trampoline does not have. Hence Delete, or retarget as a second preference. Jay 💬 10:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, implausible as a misspelling, and unmentioned at the current target (which would be a much more appropriate target, but probably unnecessary with normal searching doing its job if it's there). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmentioned and implausible because of that. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 23:51, 15 March 2025 (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 Greek diaspora. Jay 💬 08:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Greek immigrantsGreek immigrants → Greek Americans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There are certainly Greek immigrants to other countries. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Re-targeting to Greek diaspora seems to be a much more viable option. Plant🌱man (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Plantman, possibly with a hatnote to Immigration to Greece which is a plausible but less likely thing people could be looking for (I explicitly do not regard this as indicating the need for a dab and oppose any suggestion this should be deleted as an XY or similar situation). Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for X immigrants redirects that do exist seem to be to point it to the diaspora article (Chinese immigrants, Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, Japanese immigrants, Korean immigrants, probably more since I just spot-checked a bunch). British immigrants points to British people. Many X immigrants titles have no redirect (American immigrants, German immigrants, Mexican immigrants, etc.). I'd say retarget to Greek diaspora as such. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:53, 18 March 2025 (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 Not in scope - Compound of two tetrahedra is not a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Compound of two tetrahedraCompound of two tetrahedra → Stellated octahedron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Compound of two tetrahedra may also be considered as the stellated octahedron, and most sources in Google Books mentions the same. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Dedhert.Jr Since Compound of two tetrahedra is not a redirect, this likely belongs at WP:AFD. Plant🌱man (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantman I don't think this should be in AfD. The reason is some sources mentions the stella octangula as "compound of two tetrahedra". The problem is the article has no provided sources for many different type of compounds other than stella octangula itself. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr Actually we were both wrong, lol. RfD is only for those pages that are already redirects, not for things that are articles. If Compound of two tetrahedra was a redirect, yes, you'd be correct to put it here. But AFD isn't exactly appropriate either. I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. (Anyone - if I'm wrong feel free to correct me). Plant🌱man (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantman Oh yeah. How can I forget that. I'm so silly. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr Nah, you're good Plant🌱man (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantman Nevermind. Just move out to the WT:WPM instead. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr Well, since you're an expert in that and not me + you proposed this, I'd rather you do it. Plant🌱man (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2025 (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 keep. Jay 💬 08:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Denning LJDenning LJ → Tom Denning, Baron Denning  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is the bluebook abbreviation for the Denning Law Journal. It's got nothing to do with Lord Denning. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RFD#K4. Most of the incoming links appear to refer to the judge. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has everything to do with Lord Denning: "Denning LJ" is how Lord Denning is cited as a Court of Appeal judge. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2025 (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 retarget. If anyone wishes to discuss where Speak Truth to Power redirects (currently American Friends Service Committee#History) that can be done as a separate nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speak Truth To PowerSpeak Truth To Power → Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights#Other initiatives  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is an incorrect capitalization of the topic--should be "to", not "To". A redirect with the correct capitalization already exists to a different target. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Since I've just created it an hour or so ago, I've taken the liberty of fixing it. fgnievinski (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: Normally you shouldn't make changes to redirects while they are being discussed at RfD (it has the potential to cause much confusion) and you definitely shouldn't remove the RfD tag. However in this case I've let it stand (other than fixing it to avoid a double redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2025 (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 all and retarget Blussy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lilmothussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Dwemussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Vampussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Seranussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Skussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Elfussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Eussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Drussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gobussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Dwussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• BlussyBlussy → -ussy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Mass-tagging of redirects created by User:GoldenBootWizard276. These all redirect to -ussy but are not mentioned in the article. They also seem to be very niche, specialised redirects (i.e. they are not something that the average reader would search for or even know about) and I can't even understand what some of them mean (e.g. what the hell is an eussy or a drussy?). Also, most of them have 0 or 1 pageviews in the last 30 days (excepting Vampussy and Dwussy which have 2). I would also like to bring up this discussion where similar redirects were discussed that pointed to -ussy. I say delete. What do you guys think? Plant🌱man (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment these were all created in a single batch on 29 February 2024 except Blussy which was created about 22 hours later on 1 March. Only two of them got more than 6 hits in the calendar year 2024, most got 3 or 4 views in the same period. Given that these figures universally include 2 hits on the day of creation, which can be attributed to the creator and/or new page patrollers, only Eussy (8) and Drussy (11) are worth even considering as indicating utility, and even then they are at the extreme bottom end. None of them entries at Wiktionary so soft redirection there is not an option. "Blussy" is the name of a song mentioned at Mira (album)#Track listing, none of the other words are found in mainspace outside of these redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget Blussy to Mira (album)#Track listing (weak because it's not getting page views, and while I'm far from an expert on jazz, I would expect a track (that I don't think was released as a single) from a 2014 album to be getting hits through the year if people were generally looking it up, but it is completely unambiguous so retargetting there would be harmless). Delete all the others as unmentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Blussy to Mira (album)#Track listing as an unambigous track name, delete the others as unmentioned. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except blussy, for which an appropriate target has been provided. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletussy as unmentioned and of questionable utility. Retarget blussy per above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "deletussy" 😂😂😂 Plant🌱man (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all apart from blussy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all but retarget blussy per thryduulf, and salt lilmothussy for reasons i really hope are obvious. i could swear elfussy was a recreation... consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 12:56, 18 March 2025 (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).