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 23:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Two Suns of Japan' → Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The only usage of this phrase online I can find, without the quotes, is this ?conspiracy theory? site, which doesn't mention the atomic bomb at all. Rusalkii (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect serves no purpose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Searching with quotes I get the same results as the nom. Searching without quotes led me to a load of sites about Masami Teraoka's experience of witnessing the Hiroshima bombing, including the following quote "We stood on the street and looked at the sky, I pointed out that I see two suns," he says. "One was the real sun, the other was an atomic bomb. Usually people talk about mushroom clouds, but from where I was there was another sun over Hiroshima City that day.".[1] However there doesn't appear to be a single quote that stands out, he seems to have spoken about it many times using many different sets of words (as one would expect). This experience is not mentioned in our article about him, nor have I found it mentioned anywhere else on en.wp and there are no mentions of him at all on wikiquote nor does searching there for the phrase "two suns" bring up anything relevant. So while it might make a plausible search term without the quotes, we don't have any relevant content to direct people to so it wouldn't be a useful one as things stand. With the quote marks it's even less useful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 28 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 disambiguate. Clear consensus to disambiguate. Thanks to Thryduulf for drafting the disambiguation page at Vancouver University. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• University of VancouverUniversity of Vancouver → University of British Columbia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Vancouver University → Vancouver Island University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

There are two universities in Vancouver, and while UBC is certainly the more well-known of the pair, SFU is not obscure or small. Cremastra (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's also a Vancouver Island University. I don't think this redirect is useful or helpful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. This is a very plausible search term, but it's ambiguous so we should take people using it to somewhere they can find whichever of the institutions they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added Vancouver University to this discussion, I actually slightly prefer that for the title of the disambiguation page with University of Vancouver redirecting to it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into a disambig. Definitely UBC is by far the most important of the target candidates, but also the farthest away from the UofV name, so WP:NOPRIMARY. --Викидим (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig drafted at Vancouver University. Searches also found reference to Washington State University Vancouver. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per folks above. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Setindexify per the aboves -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 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 Delete per WP:G6. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mersey+wiking → MS Stena Baltica (2005)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Mersey Viking is how the ferry was originally called, but "Mersey+wiking" is completely implausible. There are three errors here (spelling, spacing and the plus sign), and my web searches revealed zero results. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible combination of errors. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very unlikely to be helpful, not used anywhere else on the internet. 00:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
• Speedy delete, G6, unambiguously created in error, see the move immediately after it was made. Also, could someone bundle MerseywikingMerseywiking for the same reason? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:38, 28 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 soft redirect to Wikt:chocolate teapot. Jay 💬 16:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chocolate teapot → Teapot#Chocolate teapot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The target section no longer exists, and the word "chocolate" doesn't even appear in the target article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:A520:4089:C5D3:5942 (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. This is a well-used redirect that should lead to content somewhere, either we could restore the mention removed in this edit by Викидим without discussion, revert to a stand-alone article or soft-redirect to wiktionary. I think that order matches my preference. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that the content has been removed, apparently by consensus, from the Teapot article (see below), my first preference is now a separate article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've restored the content at the target page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. This can be considered withdrawn in that case. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:C58E:8E53:4854:F5A7 (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been reverted; please take a look at the edit summaries and talk page there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, is a soft retarget to wikt:chocolate teapot possible? Cremastra (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Crosswiki to wikt:chocolate teapot as long as the content isn't in the enwiki article (which imo it shouldn't be, this seems undue for such a broad subject as "teapot" to discuss this relatively obscure idiom). Rusalkii (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Crosswiki using the template {{Wiktionary redirect}} per Rusalkii. Xoontor (talk) 08:18, 5 April 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. Cited mention now exists at target article. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Star Yak RanchStar Yak Ranch → Jeffree Star  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Per search engine research, it seems that the subject of this redirect is a venture that was established by the target of this redirect, but the target lacks any information identifying and describing the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The Star Yak Ranch is now mentioned in the article, with a local radio station reference mentioning the ranch by name. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 15:26, 27 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. Jay 💬 14:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Additiona information over foreing Commerce and Navigation → Foreign commerce and shipping of the Empire of Japan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was the target article's title for less than a month in 2005 and the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Additiona information over foreing Commerce and Navigation, but I don't think that justifies having such an utterly implausible and confusing redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless required for attribution or similar (I don't think it is but I'm not 100% on that). Two spelling errors and the "Additiona(l) information" do make this implausible. I'm not 100% sold on it being confusing, but that's academic. Thryduulf (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (I was referring to the fact that the title does not appear to be clearly related to Japan.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Dates back 20 years now, and was part of trying to clean up a large batch of Japan-related articles by a couple of Latin American editors. No longer needed. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletiona because I now think "Additiona" sounds like someone's name. And who is getting some "foreing"? Maybe professional golf players? Steel1943 (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what? Rusalkii (talk) 00:06, 28 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. A hatnote to Victimology may be added; participants are not convinced about it though. Jay 💬 12:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Victim theoryVictim theory → Austria victim theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This term seems to be used for Victimology as well. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw such a usage here, but I'm not convinced that it is a more widespread usage than the Austria victim theory. Maybe we could put a hatnote on Austria victim theory? Like so:

"Victim theory" redirects here. For the study of victimization, see Victimology.

StainedGlassCavern (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @StainedGlassCavern; if the term is not widely used outside of the Austrian usage, then a hatnote is in order. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 23:25, 27 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).