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. ✗plicit 00:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nude spanking → Erotic spanking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-erotic spanking is also done to the nude buttocks. (NPP action) jlwoodwa (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Retargeting to spanking would make this a case of XY redirecting to X, which is generally unadvisable. I would imagine that someone who included "nude" in their search is probably looking for the erotic version. Therefore, I think that the current status is best, if only by a slight margin. Anonymous 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per An anonymous username, not my real name. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While non-erotic spanking can (but not necessarily always) be done to nude buttocks, someone searching for this term expressly is far more likely to be looking for the erotic version. I'm thinking WP:PTOPIC holds sway here. Fieari (talk) 23:52, 20 January 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 00:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Torpedo Edward → List of Mario franchise characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not listed at target. I couldn't find anything called "Torpedo Edward" in the context of Mario characters online. (NPP action) jlwoodwa (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an enemy called Torpedo Ted in Super Mario World. Ted is short for Edward or Theodore. Otis the Texan (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible redirect, as the name of the character, and consequently the only name by which is known, is Torpedo Ted. We consult WP:POFR: this is not a misspelling of a name, an alternate form of a name as found in reliable sources, alternative spelling, or likely misspelling. This is an alternate name for a character constructed from whole cloth. Any assertion by OP that this redirect helps clarify characters for themself must not be taken seriously, as they have admitted that this, as one in a series of redirects created, is a test edit. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 03:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Regardless of whether this was a test edit or not, the question should still be asked, "Is this helpful? Would it assist anyone in reaching their intended target?" And the answer in this case is no. While "Ted" might be a standard nickname for "Edward", Torpedo Ted does not seem to be known ANYWHERE as Edward, to the point where there is significant confusion when most people encounter this form of the name. It's unused to the point where my first thought would be that someone else must be named Torpedo Edward instead... maybe in a cheesy 70s dieselpunk production or something. So, gotta say delete on this one, unless anyone can find it attested somewhere significant enough that it would prompt someone to search it (unlikely). Fieari (talk) 01:31, 22 January 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 00:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alfre Mondad → Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

At first I thought this might be some obscure, minor character from the movie, which would still probably not warrant a redirect. However, after looking through the page history and Google, it seems that the article on this alleged character — that later ended up becoming this redirect — was completely made up (at best, as some sort of fanfiction, at worst, as a hoax). I have no idea how it's survived since 2005. It feels like a time capsule to a very different era of Wikipedia. I'm not sure if any speedy deletion criteria apply here, but it seems more than possible. Anonymous 21:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; feels borderline for WP:G3 (but I also think it's be non-controversial to delete it as such). Skynxnex (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A fanon name for an unnamed character in the film. If it had gained some kind of major currency it could be a valid redirect (as in Dj pon3, for instance), but it did not gain any major currency. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:46, 20 January 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Daask (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mdy → Template:Use mdy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:MDY → Template:Use mdy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Usemdy → Template:Use mdy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Usemdydates → Template:Use mdy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Use MDY → Template:Use mdy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Use mdy → Template:Use mdy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Dmy → Template:Use dmy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:DMY → Template:Use dmy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Usedmy → Template:Use dmy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Use dmy → Template:Use dmy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Use DMY → Template:Use dmy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Usedmydates → Template:Use dmy dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

(I haven't tagged all these templates and am reluctant to put a visible notification in mainspace for this usually-invisible template at the top of articles.)

Part of the purpose of Template:Use mdy dates is to indicate to editors what they should do. Thus, readability is important. I propose all of these redirects be replaced with their target which is:

1. More easily understood even the first time you see it.
2. Standardized, and thus easier to quickly scan and read.

I intentionally did not include in this nomination Template:Use MDY dates or Template:Use DMY dates, which are sufficiently readable for my concerns.

Daask (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daask: I'm not sure if this is an RfD matter, since you're not asking for changes to the redirects' contents. But a bot that automatically bypasses these redirects sounds like something that might get consensus at a village pump. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason these redirects exist is to make editor's lives easier. I'd be happy to bypass them by bot if there's community consensus.

Please also note that if these redirects were deleted, loads of history becomes less readable. I think you would need to find a better use for the template names to convince e otherwise. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Withdrawn per Rich Farmbrough's concern about the readability of article history. As Tamzin suggested, I've proposed bot replacement of these redirects at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Replace abbreviated forms of Template:Use mdy dates with full name. Daask (talk) 20:19, 18 January 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 Repetitive strain injury#Definition * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Emacs pinky → Emacs#Emacs pinky  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Does not seem to be mentioned at target; Repetitive_strain_injury#Society appears to be an alternative. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The whole section seems to have been removed recently for being unsourced. I've definitely seen the term used many times — it appears a lot in discussions of Emacs — but indeed I'm not sure many reliable sources exist for the target to be reinstated. Mlkj (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom, but not to #Society which I have removed. Now at Repetitive strain injury#Definition. Jay 💬 11:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Jay to where it is actually mentioned. Rusalkii (talk) 01:12, 3 February 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 💬 11:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BA flight 83 → British Airways Flight 38  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

38 is the correct flight number, not 83. THISGUYtalk 13:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @TG-article: I added it because the China Daily had, in an article, mistakenly called it "BA flight 83": http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-01/19/content_6406182.htm : "Thirteen people were injured when BA flight 83 from Beijing[...]" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with possible retarget as per Aviationwikiflight. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but a retarget is possible if an occurrence involving "BA83" occurs. A Google search for "BA Flight 83" does show that initial reports referred to the flight as being "Flight 83". So even though it is the incorrect flight number, for now, I see no need to retarget/delete the redirect. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:14, 19 January 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Triple dub → World Wide Web  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. It appears to be an outdated slang term that saw some use in the earlier days of the Internet but has largely faded into obscurity. A Google search shows three entries on Urban Dictionary for the phrase, and essentially nothing else. It also appears to be the name of an obscure rapper, which may well be a slightly more popular topic. Regardless, this redirect has gotten a whopping zero page views in the last month, so the course of action seems clear. Anonymous 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Should I also nominate Dub dub dub for being a related slang term? User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's more common and less ambiguous, so probably should be kept. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget to Double-double#Triple-double, depending on its prominence as a basketball term. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if it really appears to be the name of an obscure rapper. Otherwise keep since it's an improbable search, and could help that 1/1000000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC12GT1 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous: Can you provide a source on the more popular topic of the obscure rapper? Jay 💬 20:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: [1], [2], [3]. Clearly non-notable, but that doesn't mean that no one would attempt to search anyway. It's anyone's guess as to whether people are more likely to search for an artist who doesn't seem to have gotten any media coverage or a piece of slang from twenty years ago. — Anonymous 20:51, 28 January 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Benedict (Churchill) → Benedict Churchill  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely variant formatting. Rusalkii (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii This actually is fairly common amongst articles referring or about Orthodox bishops, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eastern_Orthodox_bishops_in_the_United_States_and_Canada Alexthegod5 (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! On reflection that makes sense, if they are not usually referred to by their last names. Withdrawn. Rusalkii (talk) 04:26, 18 January 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• British independent → Brexit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Brexit doesn't necessary mean British independent, also when I google the term, it prompted out The Independent and British Independent Film Awards, so this redirect is ambiguous. A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant POV. Delete or redirect to The Independent (as a sloppy distinction from the many other Independents out there). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (which is what should have happenned in 2018 instead of blanking [4]). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very vague -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 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 💬 11:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kyiv, Kyiv City, Ukraine → Kyiv  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely search term: Kyiv is Kyiv city, surely? It is independent from its Oblast, but there's no Kyiv inside a Kyiv city. Cremastra (u — c) 00:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm it’s kinda a good point but I may or may not have searched it before created the redirect… Yh ik it’s probably a bit unnecessary Waited2seconds (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, kinda funny though ngl Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to WP:NOM? How does that apply in this case? I of course haven’t yet completely red the policy, however I don’t think it concerns redirects. Waited2seconds (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Waited2seconds Wikipedia discussion jargon. It's short for "nominator". I'm the nom, so "delete per nom" means "delete per what I said in my nomination statement". Cremastra (u — c) 22:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, thanks for explaining! Waited2seconds (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely search term. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely per nom and Samoht27. Carguychris (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Subdivisions of Kyiv seems to indicate that there is a Kyiv inside Kyiv, aside from the oblast outside of Kyiv; and there is also Old Kyiv contained within that Kyiv that is inside Kyiv -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_{this is a lot of kyivs for me xd}

Delete per nom, and in fact I would even potentially argue that this is some weird kinda vandalism. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:51, 28 January 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).