Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3

March 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 3, 2025.

Talk:Besame Mucho (film)

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. Rather than waste time debating whether a talk page left behind from a page move that should have been done without leaving a redirect behind, should be kept (what purpose would that serve), maybe spend more time correcting the redirect's Rcat template wbm1058 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created. Talk:Bésame Mucho (disambiguation) is a red link, so it cannot be pointed there and as per WP:DAB it cannot be created. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 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).

pin game

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Jay 💬 04:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weird case. "pin game" (with a space or dash) seems to be a collective term for the kind of games you'd find on YEAH! YOU WANT "THOSE GAMES," RIGHT? SO HERE YOU GO! NOW, LET'S SEE YOU CLEAR THEM! (with like 2.5 results related to pinball i guess), while "pingame" seems to refer to an unnotable band. though pingame journal is an article that exists, so maybe an argument could be made for it? consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 20:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the article, By the 1930s, manufacturers were producing coin-operated versions of bagatelles, now known as "marble games" or "pin games". - redirect seems reasonable BugGhost 🦗👻 00:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Bugghost says. If some other potential target comes up, that we need to address versus claptrap like non-notable bands, then we can disambiguate by one means or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
time to yap lol
results from a slightly more in-depth search gave me the act of pinning games (whatever that could mean for both terms), "pin-pulling/pushing" games (like the ones in YEAH! YOU WANT "THOSE GAMES," RIGHT? SO HERE YOU GO! NOW, LET'S SEE YOU CLEAR THEM!, and those sexually questionable mobile game ads which i'm surprised don't have a lot of coverage here beyond gardenscapes), bowling, push-pin (that's a thing!?), and ring-and-pin. as is, this is a little confusing because the thing that seems to be the primary topic doesn't have an article, and the most reliable sources i got for pinball or related games were the source used in the article... and the article
that gibberish aside, if that's the case and i haven't misread the article (which is admittedly pretty likely), it refers to bagatelles as "pin games", not pinball, so wouldn't it be better to retarget and mention the nomenclature there for now? consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 13:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target Bagatelle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go in the hopes of getting some Bagatelle-related comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Are the set of games akin to bowling, such as 9-pin, 10-pin, duck pin, and so forth, known as pin games as well? I could easily see them being referred to as such, but I don't know if they are. If so, that would easily be enough to warrant a DAB being drafted. As it is, I'd weakly support a DAB anyway due to the existence of the minor indie band and the fact that pin-game is not currently a common name for pinball (even though it definitely used to be), meaning that it wouldn't necessarily obtain WP:PTOPIC status. Fieari (talk) 00:55, 5 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).

TPOT

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 17#TPOT

Manhattan Museum of Art

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 23:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple art museums in Manhattan, and the MoMA is not the largest. It's unhelpful to have this redirect to just one of the many art museums in Manhattan, especially if it's not the largest or most famous one. We also have the Met and the Guggenheim in Manhattan. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there are no museums in Manhattan with this exact name. With the existence of a large number of art museums in Manhattan, this redirect is unlikely to be helpful and woild instead be misleading. Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, MoMA is far from the only art museum in Manhattan, and I can't find evidence of any art museum in Manhattan (including MoMA) using this as an official name or nickname. This term is too vague and unhelpful. ApexParagon (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if that nickname did exist it would more likely go to Metropolitan Museum of Art, but the Met is also far from the only art museum in Manhattan Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anything, the first that comes to my mind is the Met, but as said above, that name doesn't refer to a single museum. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:33, 5 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).

Girl farts

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 23:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful search term, nor is there anything relevant to gender at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to queefing's target (i'm User:Someone-123-321 by the way, but due to reasons the reply system I'm using doesn't work on Chrome :[). When someone searches up "girl farts", they're almost certainly looking for the kind of farts that only women have - hence, queefing 65.181.23.139 (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't beilieve I'm even having this discussion, but that's not exactly the expected result from my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the kind of farts that only women have - hence, queefing

This is not true as women are also able to fart anally[1] and the term "fart" is mostly used to refer to anal not vaginal farts. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"women have asses too" being used as a genuine argument in rfd is probably up there with the funniest things that have happened in this entire wiki consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 21:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just to be clear, i didn't mean "women can only queef", i meant "women can fart but they can also queef, something which men can't do" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
then you probably meant "only women can queef" which, while reductive towards the continued existence of trans people, is a little harder to misinterpret consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 16:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, as there's pretty much no good target for those. nerf this consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 21:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - While queefing might be a potential target, I think this more commonly refers to a social phenomenon often commented on (mostly by commedians), that you never hear girls fart, but they obviously do. Japan also has the situation where women, specifically, are known to strongly object to anyone hearing them use the toilet in public bathrooms, causing them to flush the toilet repeatedly while on it... and so the addition of a button to make a flushing sound without actually flushing saved them a significant amount of water. I'm sure there's more commentary on similar social phenomena in other cultures... which makes me think that this is potentially article worthy, and thus WP:RETURNTORED would apply. If kept or retargeted, which I don't strongly object to, {{R with potential}} should be tagged. Fieari (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fieari/lack of any content on specifically women farting in the target. I don't think queefing is referred to as farting enough for this to be a likely search target. Rusalkii (talk) 19:32, 10 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).

Cyrillization of Persian

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 23:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik is not the same as Persian, and the title suggests that the target may be either about introduction of Cyrillic writing in Persian in general (As far as I know, no such thing happened.) or about transcription of Persian into Cyrillic (which is not the topic of the target). Janhrach (talk) 18:10, 3 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).

Wikipedia:STATEMEDIA

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. No prejudice against recreation if that draft ends up being moved to project space. asilvering (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHORTCUT to content that was promptly removed and has been unanimously rejected by everyone except its author at Wikipedia talk:Independent sources#State media, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not relevant?, and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Confusing addition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an essay on the use of state media sources on Wikipedia? If yes, then WP:RETURNTORED, if not, then we might be better off retargeting to WP:SSFN. Nickps (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having an essay on state media might actually be helpful, given the confusion that lead to this redirects creation (not that I'm volunteering to write one). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I un-volunteer myself from both writing it and from defending it against people who believe that they know something that nobody else knows and which can't be WP:Directly supported in reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Which is not relevant, it is currently in talk page. Absolutiva (talk) 01:19, 4 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).

Lithuanian Cyrillic

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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is the primary topic, but the target article does not actually contain anything about the writing system. WP:RETURNTORED? Janhrach (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sbaio or Pofka probably know enough to be able to write a couple of sentences about that. Whether it should be in Lithuanian press ban or in Lithuanian language or a separate article is beyond me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Janhrach:, @WhatamIdoing: The Lithuanians were forced by the Russian Empire to write Lithuanian language texts in Cyrillic alphabet with the primary aim of Russification of Lithuanians when we lost our statehood in 1795 (see: Grand Duchy of Lithuania), while the Lithuanian book smugglers illegally transported to Lithuania books printed in Latin alphabet (which is usual alphabet for Lithuanians historically and nowadays). I don't think that there should be a separate article "Lithuanian Cyrillic" because such a thing never existed voluntarily and simply Lithuanians along with other nations occupied by the Russian Empire were forced to write their native languages texts in Cyrillic alphabet instead of Latin alphabet. I think "Lithuanian Cyrillic" should be a redirect page to article "Lithuanian press ban" because it is related solely with this ban which was imposed in 1864 and was lifted in 1904. -- Pofka (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Pofka. Do you think we need a sentence in the Lithuanian press ban article that gives a definition of "Lithuanian Cyrillic" or describes anything about it (e.g., if it has any special characters or unusual features)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: There is already a sentence in the lead about the usage of Cyrillic alphabet and there are also mentions of that with sources in different sections. – sbaio 14:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I too don't think Lithuanian Cyrillic should have a separate article, but it (as a writing system) is a distictive topic which is not covered at Lithuanian press ban (but still could be covered), so, in my opinion, the title "Lithuanian Cyrillic" should be redlinked. Janhrach (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I think it should be mentioned in article Lithuanian press ban that Lithuanians in the Russian Empire were forced to use Cyrillic alphabet and that by such means it was attempted to Russify them. I think that would be enough. The publications in "Lithuanian Cyrillic" were not popular as Lithuanians rejected them, so really there is little value in such publications and they are just an examples of Russian imperialism. I have slightly improved the beginning of the article and added two WP:RS as references. -- Pofka (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking it over, it may have not been a good idea to delete this redirect. But let a few other editors express their opinions on this matter. Still, the target would benefit from a brief description of the writing system. Janhrach (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nom. Janhrach (talk) 18:31, 21 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).

Sat (Romania)

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 for now. If relevant content is readded somewhere, feel free to recreate or undelete. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and target section does not exist, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. In addition, if the intent of this redirect was to provide a translation, the target apparently is not the right target anyways; it seems the word "sat" in Romanian actually means village, but doesn't seem to be a clear place to target in that article either. It seems that no matter where this redirect is targeting, there is a WP:FORRED issue. Steel1943 (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any memory of a redirect I created 15 years ago, but MediaWiki does. The page "City" as it existed when the redirect was created shows there used to be a section on cities in Romania, of which sat is evidently a relevant term. Checking the backlinks and my own edit history, the redirect in question was evidentially added to fix the "SAT (disambiguation)" page. Probably the most productive thing to do next would be to see if the relevant content from city was moved elsewhere. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted that before I made this nomination by using search phrases such as "Sat Romania" and couldn't find an adequate place to retarget this redirect. In addition, the word "sat" appears in the article Romania 0 times. Steel1943 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content on Romania, and other countries, was not moved elsewhere, it was removed with comment Remove absurd section. Listing out how cities are defined and what they are like in every country of the world is obviously beyond the scope of this article. Later on, there was a discussion on splitting out the "Distinction between cities and towns" section to a separate article, but the participants may not have been aware of this large content that was removed. The most enthusiastic participant in that discussion has since retired.
Probably move that removed content to a new article? Jay 💬 09:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like User:Steel1943 has done a good investigation into what happened to the content this redirection was targeting, and the content is simply gone. As such, there's nothing for this redirect to point to any longer, and thus it (and the dab entry) should be deleted. If new content should be added later, creating a redirect can be considered based on that content at that time. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:49, 30 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).

Yuogsphere

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a reference to Yugoslavia? Term exists nowhere else on the internet. Not mentioned in target and should not be. Rusalkii (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to the article of the Southeastern Europe boycotts. Earlier on, the article used the terms Yugosphere to reference the Balkan nations that participated in this event. Rager7 (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It only "doesn't exist elsewhere on the internet" because it's misspelled. The correctly spelled version is a separate article in of itself, but due to the fact that the misspelled term doesn't exist anywhere else, it shouldn't be retargeted there. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I didn't realized that I misspelled it until you pointed to out to me. Rager7 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to delete this, because it's recent (so it hasn't "existed for a significant length of time", which would be a good reason to keep) and because it appears to be an unusual misspelling ("a frequent misspelling" would also be a good reason to keep). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 3 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).

Oswald the Lone Assassin

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No such work by this name. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CHEAP, it's a plausible search term, as most John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories allege multiple assassins (typically that Oswald was one of several gunmen), that he was present at the site but was not involved, or that he was not present at all. In other words, "Oswald the lone assassin" is logical shorthand for the official story of who killed JFK. Carguychris (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all plausible. The daily average pageviews for this redirect is exactly zero. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether it is "logical shorthand" or not, it isn't an expression that anyone uses, and the likelihood of anyone ever typing "Oswald the Lone Assassin" in order to find about Lee Oswald is zero. (Incidentally, I am also puzzled as to how it can be described as "shorthand".) JBW (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JBW, also adding that the specific use of title case implies it being the title of a work rather than a "logical shorthand". Not more plausible than the myriad of other adjectives one could use to refer to Oswald. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Weak because it's existed for a significant length of time (WP:RFD#KEEP reason), and it gets used about ~36 times a year. Otherwise, this would be an easy delete for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I don't know where you got the statistic "36 times a year"; maybe taking the page view statistics for the year up to when you checked? If so, that's not a valid statistic, for two reasons. Firstly, the number of page views is not by any means the same thing as the number of times it is used as a redirect; there are many other kinds of page views, such as someone who has seen it in an editor's editing history & wonders what it is. Secondly, the figure is seriously inflated by the views by people checking because they have seen this discussion. The number of views so far in the few days since this discussion was started has been more than in the whole of the previous two years. The number of page views in the 365 days before the posting of this discussion was 18, & the number in the year before that was 10. The most one can say about the frequency of uses of the redirect, on the basis of that information, is that it is at most 14 per year, and there's nothing to say it isn't 0 per year. JBW (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to exclude February 2025 (when it was originally listed), then it's 28 times in the previous 12 months.
I believe that this tool captured all page views, including uses as a redirect, and not just &redirect=no views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Your link covers February 2023 to January 2025 inclusive, which is 24 months, not 12. The total of 28 views in those 24 months agrees with what I said: 18 & 10 in each of two years. JBW (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Thanks for checking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 4 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).

Eternal Limited

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. It was nominated due to a lack of mention, which is now moot due to a mention being added. -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. I'm having some trouble figuring out the connection between this and Zomato, a search is pulling up lots of clearly unrelated things. Rusalkii (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a name change: https://www.republicworld.com/business/zomato-changes-name-to-eternal-limited-company-confirms-decision Aprzn (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well, no objection to the redirect and/or a move if it's actually called that and the target reflects that. Rusalkii (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is part of a company renaming exercise (Zomato Limited → Eternal Limited) that has received board approval but has yet to receive shareholder approval [2]. If and when the name change takes effect, Eternal Limited will be the parent entity of Zomato, Blinkit and other businesses. This is similar to Facebook Inc changing its name to Meta Platforms. Yuvaank (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like we should close this. Maybe the nom could put a note on her calendar to check back in a year. ("Not mentioned" is not actually a reason to delete a redirect. That only applies if it is "novel or very obscure".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 3 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).

Template:---

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There was no consensus that the redirect causes confusion. Alternate suggested actions are available such as requesting at WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks and Tamzin's wrapper. Jay 💬 10:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subst-then-delete or retarget to {{mdash}}. wikt:---#Punctuation_mark shows how a triple hyphen is an em dash, but this redirect is to a 3-em dash. Deviating from the customary Hyphen#Use_in_computing only causes confusion. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I don't think that anyone is helped by deleting this. I'd be happy to see all such templates replaced with the correct characters, but that should be done with a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks (perhaps once a year), and not by deleting a ten-year-old redirect that people might be accustomed to using as a short way to invoke the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could make the template a wrapper set to {{subst only|auto=yes}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The people who might be accustomed to this are exactly the people that would be helped by deleting this. Deletion would free them of the misconception that "---" could mean anything other than a 1-em dash, and correctly teach future editors who see {{---}}. As an analogy, this is equally helpful as nominating a template that only supported yyyy-dd-mm, to teach them that the correct way of using ISO dates is yyyy-mm-dd. This should be deleted under WP:RFD#DELETE 2. confusion and 5. nonsense, unless someone can cite a source that recommends "---" for a 3-em dash. (same IP editor) 173.206.105.221 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's job to teach editors that three hyphen-minuses, if rendered in plain text, will be interpreted as a single em dash by some people. People who can't figure out that typing {{---}} and typing --- all by itself are different are unlikely to be successful Wikipedia editors anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a template only used by wikipedians, who can be expected to figure out what the template does before using it. Template names are pretty much arbitrary, and if people are using it, they find it helpful, and that's enough a reason to keep as any. Habit is fine in the backend, insisting on naming accuracy is only useful if more wikipedians find the naming confusing than not, and I don't think confusion is happening here. Fieari (talk) 00:58, 5 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).

Shoo in

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. Well, no one strongly opposes, and more than a month later we've barely turned up anyone who cares, either. Delete it is. asilvering (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mention in the article was removed in June 2012. Shoo-in was deleted in May 2024.
Personal commentary: shoe-in is a very annoying typo that I see quite frequently in Wikipedia discussions. Hopefully deletion will serve as a deterrent for that. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 01:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would anyone be opposed to me creating Shoo-in as a soft redirect to wikt:shoo-in? I figure this is the best place to ask, given the previous RFD seems to have been only attended by a blocked user. It's more valid than any of the three redirects up for discussion, and I think it has a case to exist even if these three get deleted. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 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).

Demolition lovers II

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 Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge#Artwork. Jay 💬 12:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First time doing something like this, let me know if I've made a mistake. I believe this redirect should be deleted, especially to avoid confusion with the newly-created page for "Demolition Lovers". "Demolition Lovers II", from what I can tell, refers to the title of the album cover's artwork, but it is not referenced in the article (nor in reliable, secondary sources from a Google search). The redirect also seems to be rarely used, with Pageview Analysis showing only 121 uses over the past decade. In the case that this redirect ends up being kept, then it should at least be renamed to put it in title case. Thank you. Leafy46 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 12:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Retarget to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge#Artwork but change casing. The back cover of the album refers to front cover as "Demolition Lovers II", and there's a couple Reddit posts referring to it as such. There's a nonzero chance someone might want info about the cover art, so I would keep it under WP:CHEAP. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth pointing out that, as mentioned in my original comment, the "nonzero" chance is much closer to zero given that the redirect was only used about 12 times a year on average, and that there is no mention of the cover art in the article (nor would I expect there to be in the future, given that there were no reliable sources mentioning it outside of those few Reddit posts when I did my search previously). Again, though, I agree with putting it in title case if there is consensus to keep the redirect. Leafy46 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an artwork section (turns out almost none of the sources refer to the cover art by name), so that should be enough to keep the redirect. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks alright to me, I personally agree with this retarget. Thanks for putting a section together on the page! Leafy46 (talk) 16:03, 12 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).

Banu Hoot

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage does not exist anywhere on the internet aside from this redirect. Page was at this title for all of two minutes. Rusalkii (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a transliteration into English. As is common, there are multiple "correct" translations. Just leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 3 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).

Lifelore

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 Wiktionary:lifelore. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biology is about life, however this term seems odd. Biology used to have a #Etymology section that had: Historically there was another term for "biology" in English, lifelore; it is rarely used today. Later the entire #Etymology section was removed as: etymologies belong in wiktionary., and the suggestion was that these should go into a History section or a "History of" article, however this was not added back to Biology § History or History of biology. Without context, this redirect is confusing, as evidenced at another two RfDs for Life lore and Life-lore. Jay 💬 11:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 3 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).

Playhouse Disney around the world

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 11#Playhouse Disney around the world

Indiana Jones Bonus Material

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. Complex/Rational 16:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really that plausible. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:06, 3 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).

High skool musical

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. Complex/Rational 16:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. / RemoveRedSky [talk] [gb] 16:09, 3 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).

Going Electric

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 💬 18:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Dylan controversy is a better target for this phrase. The movie more or less is a derivative of the controversy. pbp 15:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the redirect creator, I won't say I'm strictly opposed to this, though I will say that this is specifically a working title of the film (mentioned in the second sentence of A Complete Unknown#Pre-production), so it's not directed there for no reason, and I did add a hatnote to A Complete Unknown linking to Electric Dylan controversy regarding this redirect. There is one instance of the words "going electric" in the latter article, but it doesn't appear that this precise phrase is closely associated with the controversy (at least as far as I can tell). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an official working title (and is capitalized as such), then I think we should keep the current target. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 3 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).

Xavier Musk

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. Complex/Rational 16:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DEADNAME, Vivian was not notable under her previous name, which is also not mentioned at the target article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems like all of the sources using the deadname are from after the name change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Deadname is not even mentioned at target article, nor anywhere else on site, and I don't think the articles linked above would be enough to justify its inclusion. That handful of mentions from multiple years prior to notability maybe barely scrapes past DEADNAME's requirements if applied conservatively, but I do not believe it is a guideline that should be used so loosely. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. vivian was not notable before she transitioned, nobody would look her up by her deadname. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. She has become notable after her transition. cookie monster 755 09:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MOS:DEADNAME and WP:NPF violations. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 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).

LGBTQ Conservatives

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 conservatism. Complex/Rational 13:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect exists only because a previous user mistakenly moved the article LGBT+ Conservatives here. "LGBTQ Conservatives" is not a name of that organization, so the redirect serves no purpose. It should be deleted. Dieknon (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to LGBTQ conservatism, which I imagine is what most readers typing in this redirect are probably looking for (and the current target is already in a hatnote there). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to LGBTQ conservatism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 3 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).

President Elon Musk

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 11#President Elon Musk

Recreational hypnosis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 13#Recreational hypnosis

LemonParty

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 11#LemonParty

Vivian Musk

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) CycloneYoris talk! 06:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources mentioned as "Vivian Musk". Absolutiva (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: very plausible search term, seeing as she is notable for being her father's daughter, and it's reasonable to assume they would share a last name even though that isn't the case. No other Vivian Musks are mentioned on Wikipedia so it's not impeding any searches. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with QuietHere that this is a very plausible search term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. cookie monster 755 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was previously known as "Vivian Musk" before changing her name. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plausible search term. MOS:DEADNAME is more relevant to gender identity and privacy interest. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 22:18, 6 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).
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_3