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! 00:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Front bottom → Vulva  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seriously? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Established British slang term, see [1]. However, there is also an American band called The Front Bottoms, so Weak DABify with that, otherwise keep. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm American, for the record, so I can't speak to slang outside that sphere of English. "Front bottom" is nonsensical to my ears, and a "front butt", if you will, has a very different meaning here, you (generic you) can look it up yourself if you really want. Not to suggest you're lying or anything, just wanted to note my perspective coming into the discussion; certainly open to persuasion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wiktionary has an entry for front butt, which it defines as a "synonym of front bottom" used in Canada and the United States. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've certainly never heard it used that way before, though clearly it's well-attested. UrbanDictionary has the meaning I'm familiar with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BlackholeWA, this is well attested British slang, see e.g. Collins Dictionary and The Guardian. I don't see any use of "Front bottom" to refer to the band, so I can't support primary disambiguation and even a hatnote would be pushing it a little. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 11:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sims Third Installment (The Sims 3) → The Sims (video game)#Sequels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely search term as this practically says “The Sims 3 (The Sims 3)”. This article was BLARed back in 2007 for being too soon. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The The Sims 3 article doesn’t use the stuff from the page history of this redirect as far as I know. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Super weak retarget to The Sims 3 or delete per nom. The relevant history may not be used in the article, but the title is accurate-I'm not 100% sure that'll work though, it's repetitive like the nom says, and may not be a plausible search term. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a title with a redundant disambiguator. Jay 💬 13:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not useful. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AngusWOOF. Would be useful if it didn't have (The Sims 3). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. There is consensus to treat this as a soft deletion, open to WP:REFUND for any interested editor who wants to retrieve content from the prior draft. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Silanylidene group → Binary silicon-hydrogen compounds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also misleading since silanylidene groups have a double bond (see Wikidata item for diagram), whereas silanes are saturated. A better target would be Organosilicon compound § Functional groups but it's not mentioned there. Therefore, weak retarget to Disilene which at least mentions disilanylidene. – Scyrme (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article without prejudice to Afd. We don't really have a good place to target this. The best redirect option right now appears to be Silylene (which currently links to this redirect via a hatnote) but it doesn't adequately describe the functional group associated with that compound class. There is content on Wikidata that could be incorporated into the article as well. Perhaps the best option would be some sort of merge, but for now, let's solve the issue with the redirect by restoring the article. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't notice that it was blanked and redirected. The reason for the blanking given was redirect what appears to be redundant article; looking at it, I think this is a misunderstanding resulting from the original, unreferenced article not being written clearly or accurately. The content in the article was misleading and (as I understand it) mistakenly conflated the silanediyl/silylene and silylidene/silanylidene groups. (See IUPAC Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry) The hatnote at silylene appears to perpetuate the same error. – Scyrme (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not an inorganic chemist and few chemists are masters of nomenclature these days anyway, but I believe that both silylidene (favored by IUPAC) and silanylidene refer to both :SiH2 and =SiH2, i.e. silane with two hydrogens homolytically cleaved, resulting in a diradical or a substituent with a double bond. Silanediyl implies a substituent with single bonds to 2 different atoms, or I suppose could also refer to the :SiH2 radical. So, I think for now we should retarget to Silylene, where Silylidene already redirects, and remove the hatnote. The inclusion of the word "group" implies the double-bonded functional group rather than the radical, but I think that just means the silylene page should be expanded to define the functional group. It now seems like that would be a better solution at this point than restoring the separate unsourced article from the page history, but content could be merged later if it were determined to be useful. I'd be interested in what Michael D. Turnbull (who edited the prior article) thinks. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken a closer look at the Gold Book (chemical terminology), Blue Book (organic nomenclature), and Red Book (inorganic nomenclature). The Red Book states: ‘ylidene’ is used on a substituent group if a double bond is implied when a skeletal atom has formally lost two hydrogen atoms and for radicals, if two hydrogens are removed from the same atom the suffix ‘ylidene’ is used. So yes, "silylidene" (= "silanyledene") covers both the group and the radical. However, the Gold Book states that "silylene" is synonymous with :SiH₂ and the "silanediyl group", which (per both the Blue Book and Red Book) is >SiH₂ (Si being bonded to two other atoms). The Blue Book stresses that CAS uses "silylene" for "silanediyl" but that the latter is preferred by IUPAC.

My understanding is that when "silylidene" refers to the radical it counts as a "silylene", but when it refers to the double-bonded substituent group it is not a "silylene". (Like how =CH₂ doesn't count as carbene, :CH₂.) Basically, it's a Venn diagram: Silylidene covers the silanylidene group and the radical, silylene covers the silanedyl group and the radical; they intersect at the radical.

This might be why the group was given its own article, although even the earliest revisions seem to have confused the group and the radical (which explains the apparent conflation I noted earlier); regardless, it's why I think retargeting the group to silylene is misleading. Redirecting Silylidene to Silylene is also potentially misleading, since it can refer to the group as well as the radical, but Silylene does give "silylidene" as the systematic IUPAC name and the hatnote directs people looking for the group elsewhere so it at least makes some kind of distinction, even if it could be clearer, so it's less problematic than redirecting the title with "group" there.

tl;dr - I think retargeting silylene and removing the hatnote would be misleading since the group is not a silylene, as I understand it, although the radical is. I still think disilene is the better target. A mention of the group could be added by simply noting that the compound comprises two such groups, elaborating on the mention of disilanylidene. – Scyrme (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• When I made my one edit to the original article all I did was to add a "See also" linking it to Binary silicon-hydrogen compounds. As the article (with no references) had been written, it seems to be confused about whether it was describing silanes (as independent compounds) or as groups attached other atoms as (something)=SiH-SiH2-SiH3 for example. without sources, it is impossible to tell! Blanking was sensible and it was only getting about 6 pageviews a month. The only issue now is whether to keep the article name as a redirect and, if so, to what. I'd be inclined to delete the redirect entirely, as being unnecessary and maybe misleading but I've no strong view. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I more or less agree with all the above. I don't think it would be a good redirect to disilene. Given that the arguably more correct name silylidene group (per Red Book) does not exist and there is uncertainty regarding either retargeting this or restoring the article, I am on board with deletion. Normally, in such a case I would argue for the article to be restored and sent to Afd. However, I think we've examined the situation here as thoroughly as it could likely be expected at Afd, so a second discussion seems unwarranted and I would support a soft delete, allowing for it to be WP:REFUNDable in case anyone in the future wants to try to rescue any content from the old article. Essentially, remove the redirect and treat the underlying article as an expired PROD until some user wishes to reexamine enwiki's coverage of the functional group and related compounds and radical. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm only weakly in favour of a retarget to disilene; I don't object to soft deletion. Leaving it as a red link until someone volunteers to add some better content would at least avoid any problems with misleading readers. – Scyrme (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2G phase-out in Maryland → 2G#Phase-out  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently created redirect for specific region that is not mentioned in target article. Don't need one for every state. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what is harmful about this redirect? Invasive Spices (talk) 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the target contains no information about the 2G phase-out in Maryland so anyone who uses this redirect is left confused. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not mentioned in the target

Roostery123 (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2G discontinuation in Maryland → GSM#Discontinuation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently created redirect for more specific region. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what is harmful about this redirect? Invasive Spices (talk) 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the target contains no information about the 2G discontinuation in Maryland so anyone who uses this redirect is left confused. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not mentioned in the target Roostery123 (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 List of Star Wars Legends characters. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Yuuzhan vong → List of Star Wars characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Again, not listed at target page. And again, a mass of these was nominated by myself back in September I believe, and I missed this one. There's a ton of redirects to this page, so it has been a project going through them. Delete or find a more suitable retarget? TNstingray (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to List of Star Wars Legends characters, as before * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Star Wars Legends characters as above. Was originally thinking it should retarget to List of Star Wars species (U–Z), where Yuuzhan vong has an entry. But there they don't mention any specific names or parts of the franchise where they are prominent. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Enclosed Alphanumerics with a hatnote pointing to Orthodox Union. Legoktm (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ⓤ → U  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] — deleted and made no longer a distinct title as sysadmin action by Tim Starling -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ⓤ → Orthodox Union  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

These two redirects are about to become one and the same due to the Unicode 11 case map migration but currently point to different places. Hence, a discussion is needed to decide which target is preferable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Orthodox Union, which explains what the symbol means. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Orthodox Union: While there are other uses for the circled U, the usage by the OU is seemingly the most well known. If there were a target specifically about the circled U that mentioned its usage by the OU, I would prefer a target there, but targeting to the Orthodox Union, with a hatnote to whatever the above discussion comes up with. TartarTorte 14:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure that a redirect to Orthodox Union is the best. While they do use this symbol they didn't create it, and this is used in all sorts of other contexts. I mostly come across it in Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing, and there are other uses like Chemical symbol#Daltonian symbols. My preference would be to retarget to Enclosed Alphanumerics and add a sentence explaining the use by the Orthodox Union. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another possibility would be to refine these to U#Related characters and add a section on the various uses of the symbol there, I think I actually prefer that option. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per 192.76.8.77's comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Clyde!_Franklin! 02:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I prefer Enclosed Alphanumerics here as suggested by 192. --Izno (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In case anyone is confused, Tim Starling went ahread and deleted the conflicting lowercase version. This discussion can remain open to decide where to target the uppercase version. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've closed the first half of this as no longer a distinct title. I like 192's idea of retargeting to Enclosed Alphanumerics but adding a mention of the Orthodox Union. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Consensus appears to want all to target to Enclosed Alphanumerics, which they already do. Legoktm (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ⓑ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓓ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓔ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓕ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓖ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓗ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓘ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓙ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓛ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓜ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓝ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓞ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓟ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓠ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓢ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓣ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓦ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓧ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓨ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ⓩ → Enclosed Alphanumerics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The adjacent lowercase and uppercase redirects are about to become one and the same due to the Unicode 11 case map migration but currently point to different places. Hence, a discussion is needed to decide which target is preferable. I weakly prefer retarget all except for K to Enclosed Alphanumerics since the articles on individual letters don't talk about the circled variants (Circle-k is preferable for both cases of K), but am fine with retargting anywhere consistent. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following letters are deliberately ommitted from this nomination: A (both cases go to Enclosed Alphanumerics), C (Enclosed C is an article and both cases point to it), R (both cases go to Enclosed Alphanumerics), U, K (discussed in separate nominations because there was another target in play), V (both cases go to Enclosed Alphanumerics, but the lowercase version originally pointed to Vegetarian and vegan symbolism before it was changed by someone else working on the same cleanup). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Clyde!_Franklin! 02:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support for nom's suggestion. Izno (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all "lowercase letters in circle", so that they aren't moved to titles like Ⓐ (technical rename), which would happen due to technical change, unless they are deleted or moved without leaving redirect to other locations. See meta:Unicode 11 case map migration. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no strong opinions about which retarget candidate is best suited. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If both the lowercase and uppercase point to the same place when the script runs then the script will delete the lowercase automatically. That's why I started this nomination, to achieve that consistency. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: I read the tech news, and it says "changes later this week". As long as they're tagged with RfD template, they wouldn't be considered as redirects, so does that mean that we immediately need to find a solution. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The script just checks the redirect table, it doesn't care about RfD templates. I'll update the meta page shortly. -- Tim Starling (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In case anyone is confused, Tim Starling went ahread and deleted the conflicting lowercase versions. This discussion can remain open to decide where to target the uppercase versions which will soon be where searches for both cases point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, they're gone, and I deployed the final case map so it's not possible to recreate them. Lowercase enclosed letters like ⓐ will now implicitly link to the uppercase version. The list above now just shows the uppercase letters twice. -- Tim Starling (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 11:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bernard M. Kahn" → Bernie Kahn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Implausible quotations." ^Clyde!_Franklin! 01:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Weak delete". Though the "correctly punctuated Bernie Kahn exists," this thing ("which was created seven minutes after it") is still getting "a surprisingly high number of pageviews, though not that high," and it's "steadily declining at an inconsistently decreasing rate per year." Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but per Sonic678. The fact that this redirect gets on average almost 25% the pageviews of its target article (here) suggests that it's being linked from one or more external websites, like the redirect Genie (feral child. Deleting this redirect would break these links. Also, the criterion #1 wouldn't apply here because it doesn't consider these redirects that may be linked from external sources. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dsuke. Not sure why this was created, but it's still harmless and it takes readers exactly where they intend to go to. Deletion, on the other hand, would bring no benefit and it could be harmful as explained above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sonic, or wait a few months. It used to get views in 2019, but it's a trickle in 2022. One view or two in a month or two months. Jay 💬 11:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Don't need quotes unless the person has quotes in their name like "Weird Al" AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete" per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete "per above." "― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)"[reply]
• "Delete" per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Royal guard. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Royal Guardsman → List of Star Wars characters#Emperor's Royal Guard  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Royal Guardsmen → The Royal Guardsmen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Not mentioned at target page, and the phrase as is certainly does not apply exclusively to Star Wars content. A bunch of these were nominated back in September I believe, so this one must have slipped through unnoticed. Delete due to ambiguity or find a more appropriate target. TNstingray (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: The term is definitely in use, but if the page is created, it should probably be a disambiguation page. MarioGom (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Royal guard as the primary topic, and disambiguate for other plausible targets. Retarget Royal Guardsmen to the same place. (It is currently a redirect to The Royal Guardsmen, a band.) Create a disambiguation page at Royal guard (disambiguation) with Royal guard linked as the primary topic, and list the Star Wars entry and band there. Alternatively, make Royal guard itself the disambiguation page. Edit: a hatnote to the band is sufficient for disambiguation. – Scyrme (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As a note, this one didn't slip through the previous RfD; it was decided that we'd deal with Royal Guardsman and Royal Guardsmen together in a separate RfD, but no-one had gotten around to starting it until now. – Scyrme (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added Royal Guardsmen to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Royal guard. A hatnote to the band should be added if a disambiguation is not created. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to royal guard. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to royal guard. Add redirects here hatnote for the band, disambiguate if there are even more Royal Guardsmen media titles. If the Star Wars ones are really that notable, you can create Royal Guardsmen (Star Wars). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Emperor's Royal Guard" was included in the list as recently has 2021, but the entry was pruned sometime during 2022 (probably because the entry was unreferenced or perhaps the guard aren't really a "character", they're a group/institution). I agree that a hatnote to the band is sufficient. – Scyrme (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 and keep.

• Delete Russian intervention in Ukrainian civil war
• Keep Russian intervention in Ukraine

Regarding Russian intervention in Ukraine, the argumentation by the keep/retarget side was much stronger and grounded in policy (as Tamzin explains, WP:NPOVTITLE doesn't apply to redirects). I am closing it as keep, without retargeting, since there doesn't appear to be a consensus on where it should point; it just wasn't discussed enough. Legoktm (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Russian intervention in Ukrainian civil war → Russo-Ukrainian War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Russian intervention in Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect was created after an undiscussed page move of Russo-Ukrainian War was undone. Google search of the redirect name turns up only a single source that uses the same term; a book Constructivism Reconsidered.

The term itself is very likely a WP:NPOVTITLE violation, and so goes against WP:RNEUTRAL. I would have WP:G3'd it, except that this may have been a good faith move. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One user moved the article without consensus in order to introduce PoV. That's now been undone, and the resulting redirect should be deleted as it still contains PoV. — Czello 08:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT to prevent further disruption. WCM_email 09:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My comment was made before the additional redirect was added but I would agree this also needs to be deleted and salted. WCM_email 12:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question A user moved this redirect to Russian intervention in Ukraine, which created an extra redirect and placed the AfD on the wrong page. I've undone this now, but should Russian intervention in Ukraine also be put up for AfD? For now I've simply redirected it to Russo-Ukrainian War. — Czello 12:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've nominated the other redirect also and bundled them together. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both There was no need for the redirects before the move and there is still no need after the repair. Ex nihil ^(talk) 13:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- factually inaccurate advocacy (experts don't describe events as a civil war). Delete per NPOVTITLE/WP:POVNAMING. Jr8825 • Talk 15:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NPOVTITLE, factually incorrect (both the "intervention" [RU has always been involved] and the "civil war" [Not one country]). ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Michael Z. 00:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Objectively, the second title can refer to a half dozen or more events since 1659, and could be redirected to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine (although it could refer to non-military actions as well). The first obviously means events during 1917–1922, not recently. —Michael Z. 17:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Russian intervention in Ukraine. The term "intervention" is used in reference to various aspects of this conflict several times in the article. Also the Russians seem to commonly use terms along these lines. WP:RNEUTRAL applies here I think, and many of the rationales above (such as WP:NPOVTITLE) are not relevant as this is a redirect not an article title. Delete the "civil war" one. A7V2 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per prooposal to keep Russian intervention in Ukraine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We also have Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014) and Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) both redirecting to Russo-Ukrainian War. Probably the former can point to the same target as Russian military intervention in Crimea. In the context of intervention, Russo-Ukrainian War talks about the 2014 events, so if Russian intervention in Ukraine is kept, it too can point to the target of Russian military intervention in Crimea. Whereas Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) may be a misleading title if it's indicating that the ongoing war is still being seen as intervention. Delete Russian intervention in Ukrainian civil war. Jay 💬 18:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I worry that some above have fundamentally misunderstood WP:RNEUTRAL (WP:NPOVTITLE, cited repeatedly, does not apply to redirects). Retarget second to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a plausible, if POV, {{avoided double redirect}} for Russian invasion of Ukraine (which should point to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine but consensus was against me on that). Second choice keep. @Jay: Do you have a strong preference for the current target over the 2022 invasion? Weak retarget first to Ukrainian Civil War (DAB) as an {{r from ambiguous term}}, else delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I prefer neither the current target nor the 2022 invasion, per my vote above. When we have an ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War, a reader looking for Russian intervention in Ukraine is looking for something specific, or pre-war, and pointing them to a broad article is not helping. Otherwise the redirect can be deleted as the leftover part of a reverted POV move. Jay 💬 07:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Russian intervention in Ukrainian civil war as factually incorrect non-term; Keep Russian intervention in Ukraine which is a very plausible search term. Furius (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing a fairly clear consensus to delete "civil war" but as yet no consensus on the more generic term.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Russian intervention in Ukraine as a plausible search term. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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! 21:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The lettuce → Daily Star lettuce  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No clear evidence that "the lettuce" refers to the Daily Star lettuce as a primary topic. QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of AFreshStart)[reply]

• Delete: Today does "the lettuce" largely refer to the Truss Resignation Lettuce? Yes. Will it in 10 years? I'm guessing probably not. TartarTorte 14:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - WP:CRYSTAL predictions disregarded, there is no evidence that any other lettuce than the Liz Truss lettuce would be a plausible redirect target. Redirects are cheap and this one currently serves a purpose. Not many outside of the UK are familiar with The Daily Star and thus would not know to search for "Daily Star lettuce". Also, part of the whole meme is that "The lettuce won". -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No evidence there is a better target and no valid reason given to delete. Alternatively, this could be a dab page listing Daily Star lettuce, La Lechuga, Min (god), Deer Apartments MB 15:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not sure what to think but when I think of The Lettuce I think of lettuce the vegetable. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep contra TartarTorte. If a phrase ever refers to something, no matter the time period, it shouldn't be deleted. If there are competing uses, then we can consider retargeting elsewhere (probably to Lettuce or Lettuce (disambiguation)). However, using The dress as a similar example (nearing 10 years ago), I think someone searching "the dress" is looking for that dress rather than the general article on dresses. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. By far most users are seeking the current target for the foreseeable future. It makes no sense to send them somewhere else. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A redirect which currently serves a purpose.--Llewee (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now and modify current target's hatnote to Lettuce (disambiguation). I think the musical groups in that dab can be addressed as "The Lettuce". --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Long-term significance? Probably not. But it is very easily what people have been looking for with "*the* lettuce", and such will continue to be for the foreseeable future. We should take people to where they're trying to go. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep There is nothing else 'The lettuce' can refer to on Wikipedia, unless there is a particularly famous lettuce's article I've missed. It's a helpful redirect for people unaware what 'the lettuce' is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lettuce (disambiguation). Classic case of WP:RECENTISM. — Czello 21:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dab page contains nothing that can be referred to as *The* Lettuce. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lettuce, or maybe Lettuce (disambiguation). WP:10YEARTEST. The current target is clearly not the primary topic from a long-term perspective. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to lettuce (disambiguation) -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unambiguous. — ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Although MB mentioned that a dab can be created, he did not mention that he did indeed create The lettuce (disambiguation) two days later, with no primary. If there is still no primary topic decided, it has to be moved to The lettuce. Jay 💬 16:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Once it's clear what's happening with this discussion, I'd be pushing for that to be merged into lettuce (disambiguation). Having two disambig pages with such similar names is bound to cause confusion. Furius (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is possible to have separate disambig pages with and without the "The", but the second word starts with uppercase, so it should be The Lettuce (disambiguation), unless someone can show me examples of disambigs where the second word is in lowercase. Jay 💬 14:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Ravenpuff moved the lowercase dab to the uppercased dab some time back and also created the The Lettuce redirect. Jay 💬 15:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have BOLDly edited that dab so as to refer to Liz Truss lettuce as primary. I see no evidence that the indie rock song or the translated name of the monstrance have a claim to being primary. I am willing to discuss on the talk page of the dab so as not to dilute this discussion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep now that it's the primary. Jay 💬 15:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to lettuce (disambiguation). The association with Truss is definitely a recentism and a regional specific one at that. Furius (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone is disputing that. However, no one has thus far presented any evidence to suggest that people are searching for "the lettuce" to arrive at any of the other entries at Lettuce (disambiguation). -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion still has keep as frontrunner, but there's enough disagreement that a relist seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Similar to 'the dress' Criticalus (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Yongzheng Emperor#Yongzheng's quote. Refined current target which now points to the proposed section. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yinzhen's Quote → Yongzheng Emperor#Yinzhen's quote  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A google search of "Yinzhen's Quote" comes up with 7 results, all being related to this redirect. It seems that a new editor created this page as a sort of content fork from the emperor's article, but it was redirected at AfD. I see no evidence that this is a helpful redirect and the phrase is not used at the target. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix to section Yongzheng Emperor#Yongzheng's quote considering that both names Yinzhen and Yongzheng are used for the Emperor in the article. Jay 💬 17:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is: why is there a section titled "Yongzheng's quote" in the first place? It just seems like a poor descriptor (possibly based upon a poor translation). And I do not see any real evidence that the phrase is used outside of Wikipedia, so having a redirect to the section title does not really make sense, since it is a highly unlikely search term. Further, it would be like having a redirect at Tom Cruise's personal life. Yes, there's a section about his personal life, but that isn't how redirects work. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are allowed to have redirects as English translations of non-English terms. The target section mentions A notable quote from Yinzhen suggesting the quote is independently notable. Delete IF there are no usages of equivalent Chinese terms or phrases of this English term. Jay 💬 11:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is I cannot find a single source which uses the English translation. As far as I’m aware this is just a quote by the emperor. It would be like having a redirect and section for Ben Franklin’s quote. Obviously I could be wrong but I see no evidence otherwise and no one has presented any. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 01:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix section (unless the section should be renamed?). This was redirected per a consensus at AfD. RfD is not for editorial decisions about whether this section should be kept, given that it is there we should keep this redirect per the AfD decision. A7V2 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion and the AFD rely upon the false assumption that this phrase has any usage outside of Wikipedia. I see no evidence that it does. I do not speak Chinese but the English translation does not have any search results which would suggest to me that anyone besides Wikipedia uses this wording. We should not keep a redirect simply because there is a section with that title. This is an incredibly unlikely search term considering that it has no usage outside of Wikipedia. I see no reason to believe that anyone is going to be searching for this specific section given that the wording was created by Wikipedia’s editors. Like my example above almost no section titles have redirects. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 01:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the English term needs to have a usage outside Wikipedia, but having a usage will be an advantage. What matters is if the corresponding Chinese term has usage, and the English term is a proper translation of it, per WP:TRANSLITERATE: If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. So yes, new titles can be created by Wikipedia editors. Also for reference, see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Claiming Revolution, where a made up translation Claiming Revolution, of a Spanish term was deleted in favour of a better translation Revindicating Revolution (which had one external usage though, so not Wikipedia-created). Jay 💬 09:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix per above; RfD should not be used to sort out article content. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sifo-Dyas (Qui-Gon Jin) → Qui-Gon Jinn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Confusing, misleading misdirect. These two characters are not connected in any way beyond a total of one off-screen interaction according to Wookiepedia. Definitely serves as a useless misdirect. Please delete. TNstingray (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Already got Sifo-Dyas redirecting to Clone trooper to explain the interaction with Qui-Gon Jinn. Doesn't need a disambiguation to do the same thing. Qui-Gon Jin isn't the name of a media series either. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 12:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely typo that wasn't G6 deleted back then. Chinatown, Binondo, correctly entered, redirects to Binondo AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 11:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FYROM (Macedonia) → North Macedonia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) → North Macedonia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.) → North Macedonia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Delete. All the components of these redirects are plausible search terms, but I don't think combining the acronym and its expansion in the same title is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've just discovered that Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was discussed as part of a large batch nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#TFYR of Macedonia → Macedonia that ended with a consensus to keep the batch without prejudice to discussing individual ones. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: The first one is the most plausible of the three as in theory FYROM could also stand for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro" but I can find nothing that uses that as name for the country, and regardless, until a few years ago FYROM was Macedonia's official name. I think that the improbability of the search terms that combine a disambiguator that is itself already explained in the redirect aren't particularly helpful especially with FYROM, F.Y.R.O.M., Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia all targeting North Macedonia. TartarTorte 12:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete #1. Occasionally ordered this way. Keep #2 as {{r from incorrect name}} (should be "Yugoslav"). A phrase followed by the acronym for a phrase is a reasonable search term, including in a case like this where the phrase is a common incorrect form of something, if there are sources that refer to it that way, and in this case there are. Create Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) for consistency. Weak keep #3. Logic for #2 aplies, but weakened by the nonstandard dotted abbreviation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of Tamzin's proposals-fix it that way, or delete all?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 13:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Tartar. For #1, there is no ambiguity, so the Macedonia disambiguator is confusing. Also we have FYROM Macedonia for anyone who wonders what FYROM relates to. Jay 💬 08:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was Withdraw. Now mentioned in target section. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• PlayStation Blog Europe → PlayStation#PlayStation Blog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The article never mentions an European version of the website. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is mentioned in the target section now. IceWelder [✉] 13:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• PlayStation Gear → PlayStation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is apparently an official online shop that offers physical collectibles however it is not mentioned in the article. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valid search target. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How exactly is it valid when the target does not contain the word Gear? Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm 99% sure it was mentioned in the article when I made the redirect. I've added a mention of it to the article, something Pizzaplayer219 probably could've just done instead of going "oh no, it's not mentioned here, instead of checking to make sure it can be added let's just delete it" JOEBRO⁶⁴ 23:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was worried about adding cruft to the article especially after I saw barely any reliable sources specifically talking about this website (I’m also terrible at writing stuff within mainspace). Though I probably should’ve been bold and added it to the article anyways. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pizzaplayer219: I assume you want to withdraw this? Jay 💬 15:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Next-gen PlayStation → PlayStation#Future systems  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Same problem as Next Generation Xbox. It is a costly redirect. We would have to maintain this redirect and Retarget it to a different article every specific year. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I was about to say "Keep" since a future systems section would make this not costly, however that section doesn't appear to exist anymore. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Someone should fix the target though. It refers to PS 5 as the next gen and talks about 2020 in future tense. Jay 💬 15:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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:G7 (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 → [[:{{{target}}}]]  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

due to the length of the redirect title seems unusual and unlikely to be useful(even though it is listed in article) Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:LONGDAB → Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I often refer to the target, Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area, but it seems misleading to have an essay redirect from an "MOS"-prefix shortcut. WP:LONGDAB already exists. —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In no way related to the Manual of Style. — ^Clyde!_Franklin! 14:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tamzin. Who am I to be so blind? ^Clyde!_Franklin! 00:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no relation to MOS. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pace the two preceding !votes, this is definitely related to MoS: it's "an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages § Grouping by subject area." So the real question is whether an MOS: prefix should be pointing to an essay. This isn't the only such case; MOS:GIDINFO comes to mind, and there's also a few essay-class pages under the Manual of Style/ hierarchy itself. MoS does link to this page "for detailed guidance", so I come down as keep. Given the general endorsement from MoS, perhaps what would be better is to move this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Organizing by subject area. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Idk but I personally do not support the existence of MOS redirects to pages that are formally not part of MOS, as it gives the wrong impression. From what I expect, MOS redirects should always redirect to policies or guidelines. If this one is formally incorporated into MOS, then I have no issues with the redirect. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is marked as an "explanatory essay", but the top has the standard disclaimer of This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community Seem this needs consensus to be promoted to a guideline for it to truly be part of the MOS guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are already quite a few MoS subpages that are explanatory essays rather than guidelines, e.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. See the category I linked in my previous comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Notified WT:MOS. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per to Tamzin above. Furthermore, I think that if this were to be deleted, it should be after consensus is developed regarding if explanatory essays about WP:MOS should be able to have the MOS: pseudo-prefix or if they should not, but I think that it seems consensus currently is that such pseudo-prefixes are ok for explanatory pages. The above example of MOS:GID is one I (and it seems a fair number of others) use frequently as it's helpful as MOS-adjacent. I think that as this is MOS-adjacent as well, it is ok. TartarTorte 19:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like MOS:GID already redirects to a section on a guideline page, not an explanatory essay. The hatnote at the section saying "Further information..." should be modified to make it clear that the target page is an explanatory essay. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh sorry, I realized that MOS:GID isn't the same as MOS:GIDINFO, it's that the section MOS:GID is transcluded on MOS:GIDINFO. I will strike my vote for now pending more thought because I was thinking this would apply to MOS:GID potentially in the future, which I have found to be a very useful redirect. TartarTorte 20:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tamzin. The target page directly relates to the manual of style and seems to have broad community acceptance, so whether it is "formally" part of the manual of style (whatever that actually means) it is de facto part of it and so the redirect is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...so whether it is "formally" part of the manual of style (whatever that actually means)...: For me, formally means the page doesn't have the warning "it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" at the top of the page. —Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment . Editors interested in this RfD @Bagumba:@Tamzin:@ClydeFranklin:@CX Zoom:@TartarTorte:@Thryduulf: might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area#RfC: make this page a guideline. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This is not part of MoS, but is related to it, so the redirect makes at least some sense. We don't like to create pseudo-namespace redirects (all "MOS:foo" actually live in mainspace), but I can't see that this one does any harm.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Anti-white racism → Category:Anti-white racism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Anti white racism → Reverse racism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Anti-White Racism → Reverse racism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Anti-white sentiment → Reverse racism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Racism against whites → Reverse racism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Racism against white people → Category:Anti-white racism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Anti-white racism previously pointed to Reverse racism after an earlier RfD. Similar outcome for Anti white racism (no hyphen) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti white racism. Other terms listed here for thoroughness. Agnostic on which is the better target, although Anti-White Racism could probably be deleted as an unlikely mis-capitalization. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 23:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Added Racism against white people. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget back to Reverse racism The article makes tons of mentions of white racism, even saying it's a form of it. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Seperate I think it should be a separate article in of itself otherwise retarget to Reverse racism. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I believe there is a scope to have a separate article. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Anti-White Racism as improperly capitalised, and Retarget the rest to Racism. A category is not a good target; and the general article Racism is a better target than Reverse racism. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't believe I'm saying this, but delete all per WP:REDYES. Bet we'd set a record for a REDYES deletion turning into an article, too. Reverse racism discusses the largely unsupported belief that white people in the U.S. are subject to systemic racism, with a brief section on South Africa; and Racism discusses related concepts; but it appears we do not have an article on the general concept of racism against white people, and we should, as reliable sources surely exist for one. (That doesn't mean that such an article needs to promote an inaccurate POV that racism against white people is widespread, is a social ill comparable to racism against minorities, etc.) The category is a better target than either article discussed, but I don't think an r to category is adequate for an abstract topic like this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging the participants of the previous RfD: Laterthanyouthink, Dushan Jugum, Rsk6400, Rubbish computer, Elli, BD2412, LaundryPizza03 and CycloneYoris.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all redirects per Tamzin's suggestion. If someone is to create such an article, let them do so and then have that article pass requirements for quality and notability, but right now you're setting up a bunch of orphaned links redirecting circularly in an aimless sprawl. (If there needs to be a redirect for now, my vote is for redirects to "reverse racism") Criticalus (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Since Racism, Reverse racism, and Category:Anti-white racism are all valid redirect links, it should be disambiguated to avoid confusion. Roostery123 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tamzin. While academic sources are divided on what exactly counts as anti-white racism, enough of them assert that it is an actual phenomenon (for differing values of "actual") that there's material for an article to be written. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Tamzin. Reverse racism is too narrow a topic for this search term as it largely relates to developed countries. feminist (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Reverse racism per the result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 16#Anti-white racism. I agree with Tamzin that there should be a general article on the topic, but in the meantime I think it makes sense to redirect to a 'form of anti-white racism' (to use the language from the first sentence of Reverse racism), which I feel is better than nothing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion, but no clear outcome in sight...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, to encourage the creation of a neutral and properly sourced article on the topic of anti-white racism. I checked the backlinks to these redirects that exist in mainspace, and there are four (two for "Anti-white racism" and two for "Anti white racism"). None of the four instances are being used in the sense of "reverse racism" (the belief prevalent in the US). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: not helpful to readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.