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 23:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chevy Sex → Majic Massey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Vague and especially so without mention at the target article. No mention of this phrase anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:49, 14 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 23:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Birthday Girl (Majic Massey song) → Majic Massey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of this song at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:49, 14 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 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Why Wikipedia Is Not So Great → Criticism of Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is the word-for-word name of an essay. Cross-namespace redirects are usually discouraged, but I think having it redirect there would actually be slightly more logical than its current destination (of course, deletion would avoid all confusion). Anonymous 23:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Way back during the cross-namespace redirect purge there was this RfD. —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a likely search term for readers, an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect for editors. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:09, 15 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 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• UFObow → Brainbow  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Created with an edit summary pointing towards a biology article about the UFObow, which describes it as "a single-wavelength excitable Brainbow for simultaneous multicolor ex-vivo and in-vivo imaging of mammalian cells". However, this is not mentioned at the article. Moreover, "UFObow" appears nowhere on all of Wikipedia. Readers who navigate to this redirect will not have any context due to no mention, and this is currently unhelpful as a result. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until the technique can be duly included into Brainbow. Currently, I do not believe it warrants mentioning. ― Synpath 17:12, 15 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 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ziggy (bird) → Starling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "Ziggy" at the target article. Was only at this title from 2 minutes from 21:07 to 21:09. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as G2/G3/G6. Leftover from self-reverted test edit. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:12, 15 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 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Johor Cricket Academy Oval → Malaysian Cricket Association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a page move, despite the tag given to it. Created in one edit. No mention of Johor, Academy, or Oval at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:27, 14 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 23:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Phalestine → Palestine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems implausible to insert letters into words as a misspelling. Did a check and there's zero mentions of this spelling on all of Wikipedia. Search engines were equally giving me no dice on this one too. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it should be a redirect because some people misspell 'phalestine' as palestine, especially children who read the encyclopedia. Also pronouncing 'phalestine' is almost as same as palestine, so i don't think it's implausible. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, i now believe that it's an incorrect name, not a misspelling. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The initial p in Palestine is not a phonemic /pʰ/, /f/, or /ɸ/. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never seen that spelling anywhere. DGtal (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Several hits for this spelling on Google Books (see, e.g. [1] and [2]). Looks like it is possibly an archaic spelling? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  it might be one, i've also seen this spelling in some historic middle east books (though i forgot the name of the book).🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 23:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Presidentman's findings that this is attested in print, and thus someone coming across it may wish to find out what was meant since it isn't that recognizable (as mentioned by LaundryPizza above, "palestine" is not typically pronounced with an /f/). Fieari (talk) 07:42, 21 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 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cypriots in Armenia → Greek Cypriot diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Armenia" is not mentioned at the target page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:54, 14 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 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Qatar national under-19 cricket team → Qatar Cricket Association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Thailand national under-19 cricket team → Cricket Association of Thailand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Bahrain national under-19 cricket team → Bahrain Cricket Association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The national under-19 cricket team is not discussed at the target page. Was created with the "r from move" tag but I'm not seeing any movement in the history or logs... Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bundling two more created under similar circumstances. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:58, 14 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blunt weapon → Blunt instrument  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It's starting to look like blunt instrument may become a redirect. Either way, a blunt weapon is not the same as a blunt instrument. IMO, it should either redirect to weapon and be mentioned somewhere, or be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for the fate of the current target article and do the same. While I agree that "weapon" and instrument" are not the same ("weapon" means intended use while "instrument" in this context means occasional use), their usage and consequences thereof are the same and splitting hairs would be reasonable only in presence of RS. Ny presefence would be redirectr to blunt trauma --Altenmann >talk 18:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think regardless of the fate of the article, "blunt weapon" is used in more contexts than "blunt instrument" is. The latter is solely a legal term. And it would be WP:SURPRISE for someone to be looking for a weapon and be sent to medical trauma. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm: It looks like that AfD Blunt instrument is leaning to keep. And from your comment it looks like it makes sense to suggest page renaming/redirect reversal. --Altenmann >talk 23:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:Blunt instrument#Requested move 4 January 2025. --Altenmann >talk 00:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the lead of Blunt instrument does say any solid object used as a weapon. Jay 💬 07:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 14 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 keep. asilvering (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alberteum Aedes Scientiae → Brussels Planetarium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Based on a Google search, "Alberteum - Aedes Scientiae" is related to the Brussels Planetarium. Per WorldFairs.info, the planetarium 'complemented' the alberteum at the 1935 World Fair. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed, the current planentarium is a rebuilt of the Alberteum Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Key point I didn't state in my nomination: "Alberteum Aedes Scientiae" is not mentioned at the current target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Add mention to the target using the nom's source. Jay 💬 11:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 14 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rusalkii (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• VNITED STATES → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This seems implausible to me. Does the United States have an affinity for this Latin-ish spelling in all caps that somebody would search it up? Weak Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very implausible. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Svrprisingly, appears as an OCR error in multiple documents hosted on U.S. government websites. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (Copy-paste the text layers to see, or just google VNITED STATES to get to these.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, now as usual I am not saying keep because i made the redirect. As @Tamzin stated, the term VNITED STATES has been used before. For example, see this. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given unusual plus all caps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as beyond implausible. Giuen the uast swaths of OCR errors, we should absolutely not be creating (or even keeping) redirects based on them. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OCR errors is a bit iffy. OCR errors in U.S government websites? Now THAT'S a lot less iffy. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RedactedHumanoid - the spelling (including all caps) is used on a statue in Washington DC. Unambiguous, plausible (someone sees the statue and wants to look it up on wikipedia). BugGhost 🦗👻 13:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So what? How does that make this a reasonable redirect? Who the fuck is going to type in an all caps Latin-ized version of something they saw on a statue somewhere? Do you even realize how silly this is? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CIVILITY, I'd recommend toning that comment back, 35. 🙏 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your caution here, but I don't think dropping the occasional "fuck" is per se uncivil, and I think it can even help remind us that we're normal people here and not bureaucrats putting on an air of mock formality in the face of lunacy, and yes, it's okay to let a little frustration show through, sometimes. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On one hand, CIVILITY is an important policy. On the other hand, I don't think 35 was being uncivil with their use of the f-word. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just posted a usage of the term under discussion, in the capital city of the country under discussion, which has been displayed publicly for >100 years. You haven't said why this usage should be ignored or disregarded, or why you consider mentioning it "lunacy". If someone posting a use of a term is this frustrating for you I don't really understand why you subject yourself to RFD. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From a facile perspective, this is absolutely "implausible". But it's a redirect to one of our most popular articles, for which search results are decidedly unhelpful. At that point, anything goes. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @J947 can you reword/re-explain that? I don't grammatically understand what you are trying to say here except for the first sentence. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at the linked enwiki search results for "VNITED STATES", they're incredibly scattered and unhelpful, so a redirect serves the reader better. Count this reply as my keep !vote. Tessaract2^Hi! 19:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Lots of people search for United States. Because so many do so, they use a wide range of search terms in the process – "United states"; "Untied States"; or "Unietd States of America", for example. Given the wide range of search terms, many different redirects to United States will be useful; there is much more reason to keep "VNITED STATES" than "NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES LISTINGS IN RAPPAHANNOCK COVNTY, VIRGINIA" due to the vast popularity of United States compared with National Register of Historic Places listings in Rappahannock County, Virginia. That's the gist. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see. Thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could be plausible as an OCR error or an archaic spelling. And regardless of plausibility or lack thereof, redirects are cheap and it hurts nobody to keep this one (especially since the United States article is so commonly viewed). 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Silly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while this is a bit implavsible of a search term, keeping it is cheap and it is a term vsed in a few docvments and an aforementioned statve. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:CHEAP. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plausible from stone carved plaques or OCR errors, some of which are official. WP:CHEAP applies. Unambiguous target. Harmless. Fieari (talk) 23:14, 21 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 No consensus; WP:BARTENDER retarget both to Wader (American). This is a WP:BARTENDER close that is basically no consensus, but these two redirects should be synced. Arguments in favor of both are pretty even, but accounting for the people suggesting Wader (American) should be moved to Wading bird, there seems to be more support for the redirects to target there. Any editor is free to start a requested move for Wader (American); I'll ping The Bushranger and Jay, as they seemed to have interest in starting one. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wading bird → Wader (American)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Wading birds → Wader  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Seems to me that these should point to the same target, possibly a disambiguation page. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 16:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Both should point to "Wader (American)", I don't really see any evidence that the term "wading bird" is regularly used for waders/shorebirds in any part of the world. TBH "Wader (American)" is a bizarre title that should probably be moved to "Wading bird". Somatochlora (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Target both to Wader: "Waders ... are birds ... commonly found wading ...". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Target both to Wader? Or to Wader (American)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wader (American), the article there mentions the term "Wading bird" as a common term. There's a hatnote there already, it should help navigating to Wader. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 02:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I came here from an article linking wading bird as a more general term. Depending on how this closes, someone might want to retarget those types of links. Its usage onwiki can be found here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think targeting this to wader makes the most sense as we have Category:Wading birds. A hatnote for Wader (American) should suffice for the few people who are looking for that specifically. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question as the prvious relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to wader, which already has a hatnote for the specific use. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Wader (American) to Wading bird. I'm a bit of an amateur ornithologist myself and I've never heard of "wader" by itself being used; rarely "waders" but always as a shortened form of "wading birds", not "wader" by itself. The correct term is "wading bird" and that's where the article should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedurally Close this and start a WP:RM for Wader (American) to Wading bird. Jay 💬 07:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hate to relist this a 4th time, but consensus is still not clear on which article these titles should target. It is clear at the minimum they need to be synched. Either way, even with considering the votes to procedural close this discussion and start a move request (which specifically state where they are requesting one of the proposed targets get moved over one of the redirects), consensus may still not be clear enough to even attempt a WP:BARTENDER close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 14 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 no consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump the sequel → Second presidency of Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The only sites that mention a sequel to Trump are non-notable extremely right-leaning websites Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as cool as it is that people can have sequels, donald trump 2: orange you glad he's back? isn't mentioned yet, so delete per nom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> as cool as it is that people can have sequels, donald trump 2: orange you glad he's back? isn't mentioned yet

a quote for the books Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, cheap, thing that exists. BD2412 T 14:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  hard, haaaard disagree. this can be used to keep literally any redirect, regardless of how problematic it is. as is, it could refer to literally anything gumshoos has done more than once cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Trump the sequel" gets about 40,000 Google hits, so there is definitely something there. BD2412 T 17:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ignoring the use of "trump" as a verb (ie "team fortress 2 trumps its sequel"), do those hits refer specifically to his 2rd presidency? google is being mean again, and only giving me social media :c cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and of course, the literal second i send that, i remember that i can tweak my searches. apparently "trump: the sequel?" is a... tv show? series? episode? podcast? i really can't make heads or tails of it or what the preferred target would be (maybe panorama? not entirely sure if it's the right one, and it's not mentioned there...), but i know it's not our resident carrot's own article cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the title is a joke. 2401:7000:CD82:9000:4CFF:2C02:4B61:6F3C (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because a title is a joke doesn't mean its an implausible search term. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People expect more formality than that of an encyclopaedia. This reminds me of a case some years back when someone tried to set up "mommy milkers" as a redirect to breasts. 2401:7000:CD82:9000:4CFF:2C02:4B61:6F3C (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  and on top of that dreadful maneuver, they were WRONG! they're called mommy milkies! i mean what cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Informality doesn't matter in Wikipedia, we have A LOT of articles that a "normal" encyclopedia would not have User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The treatment should be formal, the subject matter can be as silly as you like, as long as it is encyclopedic. Paradoctor (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a quick google news search yields a number of reliable sources referencing Trump's second presidency as a sequel: [9] [10] [11]. Even the not-so reliable ones (opinion/paid pieces) [12] makes a case for this being a plausible search term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VolatileAnomaly (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it has material.[13][14] 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• hmm, let's have a look at the citations in order, even though i'm absolutely no expert on burgerland political systems

  1. doesn't directly refer to his second presidency as a sequel. rather, it seems to be about his wacky hijinks in the not burning the world department
  2. i guess "the trump sequel" is close enough
  3. evidently refers to it as a sequel as a joke, but it's probably good enough
  4. seems to refer to everything about the presidency and how people are handling it, except what the annoying orange will actually do. also evidently refers to those effects as a sequel as a joke, but it probably works
  5. "hollywood's trump resistance: the sequel" is not the same as "trump: the sequel"
  6. oh, it's an episode of a tv program. hate that that's how i finally pieced it together, but it's about that episode, and not necessarily the presidency

  overall, i'm starting to think a better option would be returning to red until that episode of panorama is covered, though an astronomically weak keep would work as a second option cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  wait, what do you MEAN that episode was released in march!? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as editor who created it, Trump's next presidency being a sequel is pretty plausible, and if The Guardian, a UK newspaper of record is referring to it as so. there's going to be some note behind it. as for the anon who mentioned "mommy milkers", I cannot believe that's not been used to direct to Abigail Shapiro. BarntToust 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems to me the most plausible target is Trump: Surviving at the Top, the sequel to Trump: The Art of the Deal. (It is described as a sequel in sources such as this one.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep Usage by extremely right-leaning websites does not mean we should WP:CENSOR. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an encyclopedic or neutral title appropriate for a serious article, nor it is commonly used term for the Second presidency of Donald Trump in academic and notable news sources. WP:NPOV, WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME. This phrase is primarily used by non-notable, partisan outlets and his supporters. The original title is clear and neutral enough that aligns with this description. Nowhere else do we refer to presidents' second term as sequel. This is not a fantasy book but an encyclopedia. Onikaburgers (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Onikaburgers This isn't the title of the article, though, it's just a redirect. How is a violation of WP:NPOV? Dumb, yes. Biased? I don't really see it. Besides, it's not just right-wingers using it; the Guardian has picked it up too [15], which I see BarntToust has pointed out.

I'm leaning towards keeping as WP:CHEAP and accurate, not because that's the best argument, but because I find it more convincing than the arguments deleters have put forward so far. Cremastra (u — c) 15:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Used term. Political affiliation of the sites doesn't matter. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Redirects are cheap, it has a few (very few) pageviews, and it demonstrably has usage in sources. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 04:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no usage of the term "sequel" at the target article. Highly implausible for the second presidency to be searched for by "trump the sequel". The only thing on Wikipedia that might actually fit this is Trump: Surviving at the Top, which was the follow-up / "sequel" to the book of Trump: The Art of the Deal. And at least both of those books are titled "Trump". An entire presidency is not titled "trump". All in all a quite confusing redirect. Way better options exist to get to this article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Utopes. Enix150 (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Trump 2 was recently created, and while it's probably too late for it to be bundled here it seems like the logic for keeping or deleting it would be similar. Rusalkii (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imo a "trump 2" redirect would need its own RfD, as by-and-large that title seems far more realistic to type, compared to "trump, the sequel". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:43, 23 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 no consensus. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• YV (rapper) → Zone 4 Inc.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

We only have a passing mention of him in the target, and this redirect misleads potential YV fans into thinking we have more about him than we actually do Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see how anyone is misled. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Not really enough substance at the target to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rich, unless there is more about him than Zone 4. No incoming links, not even mentions in any other article. If there is info about him, start creating incoming links and renominate. Jay 💬 18:34, 23 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 Names of the United States#Names in the Asian cultural sphere. asilvering (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• アメリカ → List of My Hero Academia chapters#vol34  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

This is the Japanese word for "United States". The current target is unlikely to be what an ordinary reader is trying to find for when they type this into the search box. Retarget to Names of the United States#Names in the Asian cultural sphere where discussed; compare previous discussions on 미국 and 美利坚合众国. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "アメリカ" says America, not United States. Japanese Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for this term ja:アメリカ (曖昧さ回避), where the primary topic is the United States of America (アメリカ合衆国); アメ (ame) does not exist (is a redlink), though it could also mean USA -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One could make a section in Naming of the Americas to cover the uses that come from that disambiguation page for the Japanese langauge naming of the Americas -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "アメリカ" says America, not United States - in Japanese, far more strongly than in English, the word "Amerika" standing alone is understood to be a reference to the country and not the continent. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the redirect should carry disambiguation to point to where it does. アメリカ (My Hero Academia) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the creator and current and proposed target pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess retarget to Names of the United States#Names in the Asian cultural sphere, because there does seem to be a precedent of similar foreign-language US redirects being retargeted there (미국, 美利坚合众国), even if I would've otherwise assumed this was a WP:RLOTE case. Not sure if the MHA chapter should have any redirect; I would normally suggest disambiguation, but disambiguating a foreign-language word with an English disambiguator feels unlikely to be used. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Names of the United States#Names in the Asian cultural sphere. アメリカ has been used as the colloquial Japanese name for the United States for far, far longer than My Hero Academia has been in existence. Any reader who goes to the effort of entering アメリカ into the search bar would be better served by being sent to that article section rather than some list of manga chapters. Even America (disambiguation) would be a much more appropriate target than where the redirect currently leads. Bissarlda (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just learned that the disambiguation page Amerika also exists, and that would also be a more suitable target, probably more so than America (disambiguation). I still strongly prefer Names of the United States#Names in the Asian cultural sphere as that actually discusses アメリカ along with the more formal Japanese terminology for the United States. Bissarlda (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Names of the United States#Names in the Asian cultural sphere. I disagree with the Amerika suggestion, as this DAB does not discuss the specific katakana other than to say "Amerika is the spelling for "America" in various languages". It does not link to anywhere that discusses it either. The Names article does discuss it expressly. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 23 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. asilvering (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cilla Single → Benjamin Franklin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Can't find where Ben Frank ever used this as a pseudonym. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs). [reply]

• Unsure at the moment. A Google search for this term doesn't bring up anything showing how it's related Benjamin Franklin (neither does one for both this term and "Benjamin Franklin"), and mostly talks about stuff relating to Cilla Black or Cilla The Musical. I'm not sure of the connection either, but Rich Farmbrough, who created this redirect, might know. Regards, SONIC678 01:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find a shred of evidence that this name has any association to the target whatsoever. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added a reference to the redirect. Ben Franklin had a lot of pen names, as did Daniel Defoe. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  

  Which I've reverted, since you removed the RFD tag, and it should be either here or on the talk page of the redirect, or both. I did check it, and there's no mention on the page you gave, but there is a few pages later. It's a single bare listing, with no context or corroboration. Given that no one else has been able to able to verify this, I'm dubious of the reliability of the source, and if nothing else, the usefulness. Furthermore, given how many other entries from this book you've created, it would seem to be a mass creation in violation of your current editing restrictions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, this is not a mass creation contrary to Rich's editing restrictions. @35.139.154.158: your repeated references to Rich's restrictions where they definitely don't apply is bordering on harassment at this point. Knock it off.

  Rich, adding references to redirects is odd, readers typically don't see the content of redirects. Is there a way to add this information to the article instead? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, fine. My points about the redirect itself though still stand. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The reference is not for readers, it's for RfD regulars. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment surprisingly (to me) this seems to be attested despite very limited online hits: Franklin, Benjamin; Smyth, Albert H. (1905). The writings of Benjamin Franklin. New York, London: Macmillan Co.; Macmillan & Co. OCLC 1158474884. Retrieved 2024-11-28. (on page 186). I'm very unsure how someone would end up searching for this term without knowing it was a pseudonym of Franklin's however.
• This may be added to the target at the "Success as an author" section where it says He frequently wrote under pseudonyms. If we have 3 or 4 names, Cilla Single can be mentioned alongwith them. Jay 💬 06:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone takes the initiative to add a mention themselves. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rich Farmbrough has added a reference, but an IP removed it and tries to excuse himself by calling out Rich's editing restrictions where it doesn't apply User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like Cilla Single is a misspelling for Celia Single to me. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Late followup comment, it's the rfd that just won't die, apparently. I'm still baffled that anyone is arguing to keep this. The best that's been come up with is "maybe it's a misspelling of this other pseudonym", and "I found something from 1905 that mentions it, but no one would search for it who didn't already know what it was". The fact that Franklin wrote under pseudonyms is well established, and some of them are rather noteworthy and, in fact, noted at his bio. But this is so utterly obscure and questionable, that it would be extraordinarily WP:UNDUE to mention it there, given the vast amount of literature about Franklin's life and other stuff to talk about. And given the lack of mention, we shouldn't have a redirect for it (especially in light of the points I just made). Why are we still here? Just get rid of this thing already. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no mention of "Cilla Single" (or "Celia" for that matter) at the target page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:46, 23 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 no consensus. This will have to be un-redirected and go to AfD if it's to be deleted. asilvering (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnny Woo (comics) → Mega-City One#Judges  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirected to the current target in 2019, but now not mentioned there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the underlying article could be summary-merged (ie. take the intro para and the first line of the second para) into List of Judge Dredd characters. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The page had no citations but an external link to 2000adonline.com. It was PRODed twice, the first PROD was declined by Andrew Davidson with no comment. The second resulted in the BLAR. If nothing can be done, this may well go to AfD. Jay 💬 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 14 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 No consensus There are three proposed outcomes here, each with similar levels of support:

• Keep
• Retarget to List of storms named Katrina
• Move the history somewhere else

While I consider the arguments for keeping to be weaker (attribution is legally satisfied regardless of where the redirect points), even discounting those entirely would leave no consensus on which of the last two options to do. And there's definitely enough support for the status quo to not require a WP:BARTENDER close. So here we go * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurricane Katrina (lists) → Hurricane Katrina  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Possibly redundant with the "lists", at least should be retargeted A1Cafel (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This redirect has a fairly extensive history, with some content being merged to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 across a few edits before the article itself was restored until 2007. I don't know if there's an easy way to check if any of that content has persisted to the current article. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of storms named Katrina; we can't delete it because WP:MAD attribution requirements. However, the title itself should point to the list article. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as-is due to the history. This is not a way lists are titled, so there would be no expectation of searching for a list in this fashion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would show up in the searcbox dropdown, so one would expect it to link to a list -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of storms named Katrina RachelTensions (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as content was merged from this article to its current target, the redirect must be maintained to maintain attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It cannot be deleted, but where it points to can change. Or its name can change to something else; such as displacing it to Hurricane Katrina data lists -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move without redirect to Hurricane Katrina data lists per IP65, but keep at the same target as current. Jay 💬 16:19, 2 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 six of one, half dozen of the other.

• Delete Round 6
• Keep Round Six asilvering (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Round 6 → Squid Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Round Six → Squid Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Generic title, round 6 can refer to anything, not only its original title DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Bundled both nominations that share the same target and rationale. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I sorely agree that "round 6/six" is a very bland and generic expression – yet it remains both as the original title and the chosen localized title in some countries. Un Lucas Pestana (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's the original title of the show, and is still the current title of the show in some countries (Canada and Brazil, according to the article). Mentioned at the target. Unless we have another article that needs the "Round Six" title then there's no reason to remove this. RachelTensions (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Round 6", but keep "Round Six". With "Six" spelled out and capitalized, we have something that was an original (and used elsewhere) title for the show, mentioned at the target. It's ambiguous with the generic phrase, but being a title gives it some priority. However, that priority disappears when entered incorrectly, and think having a redirect with the number in place gets in the way of normal searching. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this proposal. WP:SMALLDETAILS matter. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support this proposal. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as utterly vague. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IP35's proposal. Note that we've had the disambiguated Round Six (TV series) since 2021. Jay 💬 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per RachelTensions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep as it's the original name.@ ThatAustralianBall (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too vague. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:06, 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 Complex#Mathematics. This looks like a generally amenable solution, especially because one of the reasons given for deletion is ambiguity. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Complex math → Complex number  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Complex mathematics → Complex number  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Complex numbers aren't the only complex part of math though? For one, several people have lamented (publicly and privately) about how stuff like calculus and algebra are complex as well. For second, what's considered complex can be different from person to person (for example, a 6-year-old would think something like "8/4" is the hardest question ever made whereas a recreational mathematician could probably do it easily), so complex numbers might not actually be that complex to certain people. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The phrase is inherently ambiguous, and readers have better to search separately its components complex and math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs)
• Delete per D.Lazard. One aspect of the problem is that "complex" has a technical meaning in math (referring to the complex numbers) and a colloquial meaning in general (something like complicated or difficult). Mgnbar (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I've bundled in Complex mathematics. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: this certainly is very ambiguous between the two meanings. However, for one meaning (complex numbers) we have a good target and for the other meaning (complicated in general) we don't. Therefore I'm leaning towards this redirect being ok. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, unlike many areas of mathematics like calculus, geometry, etc., the study of complex numbers doesn't really have a better name as far as I know. Whilst perhaps incorrect (and therefore a {{R from incorrect name}}), "complex mathematics" is a decent guess at what it might be called. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously. Sure, you could say there's ambiguity between "complex math" and "math that's complex" in the same way that if you wanted to you could assert there's some ambiguity between Big apple and an apple that's big. There's no article for the general concept of "math that's complicated", and even if there were, Complex number would still be the correct target for "complex math". I'd be fine with a hatnote if anyone genuinely feels there's some confusion. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody uses the phrase "complex mathematics" for this. When I typed "complex mathematics" into a Google scholar search, not a single result from the first 50 meant complex in the sense of complex numbers. Most of them were about "complex mathematics" tasks in education, meaning difficult, complicated, or advanced. –jacobolus (t) 04:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a redirect, not an article title - it doesn't need to be the exact phrase scholars use. This article covers the accepted meaning of "complex" used in mathematics, and so the redirect is correct. We also don't (and probably shouldn't) have an article on the subjective concept of "difficult mathematics". BugGhost 🦗👻 08:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are lots of accepted meanings of "complex" in mathematics; see below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a phrase which is meaningful or widely used as a unit. Curious readers should be looking up "complex" in Wiktionary and "mathematics" here, or else going to complex analysis or complex number. These titles have no inbound wikilinks from article namespace, another indication that they aren't very useful. –jacobolus (t) 04:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, you're suggesting that if someone knows that there's a concept in mathematics using the name "complex" and wants to learn more about it, they shouldn't be allowed to search "complex math" on wikipedia, they should instead search the first word on a different website and the second word here? Or alternatively, the user should just come into knowledge of more specific terms (complex analysis or complex number), presumably through extra research on some more accomodating website, and then search it here? How on earth would that be a good experience for a reader? Why would any of that be necessary or expected? BugGhost 🦗👻 09:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If we had articles on both the technical meaning and the colloquial meaning we could make a disambiguation page, or choose a primary topic with a hatnote. But we don't (Mathematics Made Difficult doesn't count), and we don't generally let the existence of a non-notable colloquial meaning get in the way of giving articles or redirects on technical topics their correct names. In technical mathematics, this can only mean the mathematics of complex numbers (unless maybe someone trying to be cute has used it for the mathematics of cell complexes), and complex number is the correct redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "giving articles or redirects on technical topics their correct names". Are you saying that "complex math(ematics)" is a "correct name" for "complex numbers"? ZFT (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RASTONISH (I couldn't really find somewhere more appropriate for such a vague term either). The plain meaning of this term is just difficult/technical/etc., not related to the complex numbers. A reasonable person looking for info on the complex numbers that already knows something about them will look up something like "complex numbers". A reasonable person looking for info about the topic that doesn't know anything about them will look for the term they found it referred to as, which will be something like the "complex numbers". The current target is misleading. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't think it's astonishing for Complex math to redirect to the article on the well known mathematical study of complex numbers, I would think it would be astonishing if it went anywhere else. The "plain meaning" of something doesn't hold any weight for a redirect when there is an obvious specific topic that fits instead (see my Big apple vs "an apple that is big" example above). BugGhost 🦗👻 14:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Complex number is certainly not "an obvious specific topic" for "complex math". On the opposite, I think that many (if not most) people searching for "complex math" do not know anything of complex numbers, since people using "math" instead of "mathematics" have generally a very low mathematical level and do not know complex numbers at all. Also, when searched, "complex math" is probably written as an altenative of "difficult math" or "advanced math". So, for there readers, redirecting to complex number goes against WP:ASTONISH. D.Lazard (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  since people using "math" instead of "mathematics" have generally a very low mathematical level and do not know complex numbers at all - Is this a serious claim? Any source for that, or just a gut instinct insult? I've got a maths degree and wouldn't bat an eye at either math, maths or mathematics being used to describe it. Also, where I am from, complex numbers are taught to 14 year olds, who generally feel no elitist need to say "mathematics" all the time, but still have the ability to understand the topic. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do have to say that I think reading anything into "math" vs. "mathematics" is inappropriate...regardless, this is an implausible, vague search topic, and if you really want to get into the weeds, who's to say that this hypothetical searcher isn't looking for Complex analysis instead? That's a whole ass branch whole-ass branch of math. And before you cry "disambiguate", no, just delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your "Big Apple" analogy fails completely for a couple reasons -- 1) it's a very well established nickname for the city in widespread use, as opposed to "complex mathematics", which is not, and 2) people would be very unlikely to search for the topic of a large apple, whereas a search for advanced (or higher, or upper level, etc etc) mathematics is a lot more reasonable. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the likelihood of someone searching "complicated math" is as about likely as someone searching "large apples", as both terms are too vague and ill defined to be articles. I genuinely don't understand the logic of saying this redirect should be deleted because it is allegedly ambiguous with a subjective, vague topic that doesn't (and won't ever) have an article. If it is ambigous with something that isn't at all suitable to be an article then there is no ambiguity at all, and the original target should remain. BugGhost 🦗👻 01:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Complex math" isn't a topic. It's a vague phrase that nobody uses to refer to the redirect target, and a plain reading suggests it's more likely to mean higher mathematics (while we don't have an article specifically about that, we very well could...most any university math degree curriculum contains something like a "transition to higher mathematics" course) than to mathematics about the complex numbers. If you really insist on the latter, again, why the complex numbers, and not complex analysis? Or are you suggesting that this is merely a couple keywords smushed together? If that's the case, we shouldn't be redirecting based on that, but even if we should, then also why not abstract cell complex, CW complex, chain complex, complex manifold, simplicial complex, etc. etc? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: "why not a bunch of other articles with the word complex in?" - Because they are clearly not the primary topic. Complex analysis is the study of functions that use complex numbers (extension of real analysis), and so not the introductory base article for the concept of complex numbers. The rest of the articles you listed are not serious suggestions - they are arbitrary articles you picked out of a hat that no one is suggesting, and are obviously more niche and very unlikely to be what the user is trying to find when searching "complex math".

  The study of complex numbers is not a niche topic - I feel some participants are confusing the topic with a some novelty number classification, like lucky numbers or happy numbers. Complex numbers are a hugely important pillar of modern mathematics and have usages that are both influential and applied. They underpin essential concepts in signal processing, computer graphics and quantum physics (examples linked), and dozens of other fields. It is undoubtedly the primary topic. If you need evidence of this, please see David Eppstein's vote above, as his view on this topic should be given some weight. BugGhost 🦗👻 11:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The study and usage of complex numbers is not normally referred to as "complex math". I agree with jacobolus (04:19, 22 December 2024). Adumbrativus (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term "complex" in its technical sense is used with various nouns (complex number, complex plane, complex analysis, complex conjugate, etc.). The phrase "complex math" is not much of a stretch, so it's a plausible search term for this topic. As for the colloquial sense of "complex", I agree with User:Bugghost: what would a reader be looking for? It seems unlikely that an encyclopedia would have an article on the vague and subjective topic of "math that's complicated". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, disambiguate, or hatnote. Just because "complex" has a specific meaning within mathematics, doesn't mean that "complex math" should redirect there, due to the fact that there are other possible interpretations of the phrase; redirecting "complex math" to "complex numbers" implies that the latter is the only instance of, or is synonymous with, the former. Put another way, even though "complex math" (the subjective/vague meaning) doesn't/shouldn't have it's own article, but "complex numbers" does, the latter is (arguably) a subset of the former; having a term with multiple (potential) meanings pointing to only one of several seems inappropriate to me, because that leads to incorrect assumptions/implications. A redirect should take you to the topic you are looking for, not a subset of it; if there are multiple (potential) meanings/interpretations, then a disambiguation page is more appropriate, or at least a hatnote at the primary topic. ZFT (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Complex#Mathematics. In the disambiguation subsection the reader can find related terms to it. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems much more reasonable. I do not agree with BugGhost's and Eppstein's reasoning; redirects should be as direct and straightforward as possible. Your proposal therefore seems like the best solution. ZFT (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But none of those terms would ever be called "complex math". I've also trimmed that section down, as it was rife with WP:PTMs. I was conservative in my removal, but I still wound up removing several. The dab page is a bad target, and a bad target is worse than no target at all. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If they would never be called that, then why are we having this discussion? ZFT (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a fair enough compromise - I personally don't think it's necessary as complex numbers are the clear primary topic in my view, but this disambiguation is a far better choice than deleting. I'd be fine with this as an outcome. BugGhost 🦗👻 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Current target makes the most sense. Those suggesting disambiguation above don't seem to have any specific other pages in mind as far as I can tell, just the general concept of "math that is complicated" which is subjective. Deletion ignores the fact that there is a plain topic right there. Fieari (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Complex math" is not a topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a loosely defined set of topics, which include, but are not limited to, complex numbers. ZFT (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No....it's....not, as I and others have been trying to get across. "Complex math" is not used to mean math about the complex numbers. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Complex#Mathematics as the best available compromise. "Complex math" is never stated anywhere on the article for complex numbers. Doing a search of "complex math" on google scholar gave me nothing related to complex numbers, and instead on topics about complex mathematics, i.e. math being complex, a la "complex math problems" among other discussions. (Second choice is delete). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been open since December, it's now Feb - could an uninvolved editor please close this (I don't think it needs another relist). It looks like no-consensus to me. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since complex math is not a topic covered anywhere on Wikipedia, nor can it be. I think it is obvious that anyone who uses the term "complex math" means "math that is complicated" and not math related to the complex numbers. Nobody has been able to attest to any usage by any source with the second meaning. Nickps (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that scholars etc are unlikely to use the phrase "complex math" frequently, as it sounds a little clunky, but in my view it is an incredibly plausible phrase for those who are learning about complex numbers and want to find the wikipedia article on the concept. Potential for ambiguity with a topic that doesn't (and won't ever) have an article doesn't pose an issue, and so shouldn't be a reason to delete. Patar knight below has posted a scholarly source below that has a heading "Complex and Bi-complex mathematics", immediately before presenting the definition for the complex numbers (page 4 of this paper). BugGhost 🦗👻 17:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I agree with Potential for ambiguity with a topic that doesn't (and won't ever) have an article doesn't pose an issue. Even if no such article exists, a reader can still search for it. Just because they won't find what they want that doesn't mean we should WP:ASTONISH them by giving them something they are not looking for. Nickps (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: Even if no such article exists, a reader can still search for it - like I said back in December, a user who is looking for an article about large apples might end up at Big apple - that doesn't mean we need to cater for them with a DAB or hatnote or whatever, because "large apples" aren't something we have an article on. It would be a bad precedent to set, deleting things based on deliberately misinterpretting titles in unencyclopedic ways, making it harder to find real articles because hypothetical people might be attempting to find hypothetical articles that don't exist (who wouldn't be able to find what they're looking no matter what they searched anyway). What about the hypothetical person who, when they type "complex numbers" in the search box is attempting to just get an non-existent article on the topic of complicated numbers, whatever they think that means - should we cater to them as well? We don't want to risk astonishing them. (Also, I'm sure the future closer is sick of reading my comments on this, so this will be the last one here). BugGhost 🦗👻 00:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Complex analysis. A Google Scholar search for "complex mathematics" and related terms like imaginary can quickly find scholarly work using the term to refer to math with complex numbers. For example, [16] uses the term as well as bi-complex mathematics to refer to work with bicomplex numbers. However, that seems to be covered by the complex analysis article better than the current target. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This target makes no sense - complex analysis is just a branch of mathematics that uses complex numbers, no more the primary topic than any other application of complex numbers, such as Complex geometry. There are plenty of uses of complex numbers in maths other than analysis. The paper you cite refers to the current target complex numbers (defines them on page 4) and does not refer to complex analysis at all. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh sure, I think I mistook "function" in the lead there for a non-technical meaning. I guess keep then. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:20, 10 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 no consensus. No further participation since more than two weeks after the second relist. There was general agreement that the butterfly is not the primary target. Hence, retargeting to Tilia × europaea which some participants indicated as a primary topic. No prejudice against converting this to a disambiguation page, or creating a disambiguation page at Common lime (disambiguation), optionally followed by a primary topic discussion at WP:RM. Jay 💬 19:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Common lime → Papilio demoleus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Common Lime → Papilio demoleus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

There is no evidence that a primary subject has been specified, as Papilio demoleus is commonly called the Common lime butterfly, but "Common lime" more commonly refers to the tree Tilia × europaea. KOLANO12 3 09:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Tilia × europaea, which my searches indicate is the primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I just added Common Lime to this RfD; that redirect hasn't been touched since it was created on 5 April 2006. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I created the sentence-case redirect on 5 January 2015, in response to this 4 January 2015 edit by William Avery whose rationale was "Downcasing per MOS:LIFE" (I patrol for untruthful hats) – wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @Bjh21:, who created the title-case redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on my other edits that day, I think I came across the butterfly article for other reasons and noticed that it started with a common name ("The Common Lime or the Lime Butterfly is a common Swallowtail butterfly.") and there wasn't a redirect at that name. So I don't think I considered the tree at all, and would have no objection to the retargeting. --bjh21 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. The shade tree is definitely more primary than the butterfly, but is it more primary than the citrus (which can be called a common lime to distinguish it from other kinds of limes such as kaffir limes or key limes)? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate is my first inclination as well. Besides the butterfly and the plant which is not closely related to the lime fruit tree, (common) lime most commonly refers to Lime (fruit), Lime (material), and Lime (color). – wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the Tilia × europaea. As far as I can find, "common lime" is used exclusively to refer to this, and never to the butterfly, the fruit, the material, etc. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's difficult to search because of all the colloquial usages, but here's an example citing "common lime" for the fruit: [17]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you managed to find one that uses this (even our article doesn't, and this source wouldn't be valid to support adding it in either), and with that in hand, the first thing I found here directly contradicts this usage, saying the key lime is a variant of the "common lime" rather than a synonym for it. Regardless, if such heroic searching is required to find this, then the tree is pretty clearly the PTOPIC, and a hatnote there can point back to the dab page for anyone actually looking for the fruit (or something else), although I think that's still overkill. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I searched Britannica for "common lime" and at the top of their list was European linden which is a red link here, hah! Second on the list was "Lime (tree and fruit, Citrus species)". What I did not see in their search results, even after scrolling way, way, down, was any butterfly. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation draft made Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? As I noted above, there's a very clear PTOPIC for this term, so what would be the point of this? We already have a dab page at Lime itself, so why do we need another here? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because several people have suggested disambiguation. I drafted a DAB because it will help discussion. I'm not here to do whatever 35.139.154.158 wants to be done. Cremastra (u — c) 15:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is somewhat nuanced and complicated. Lime tree, as listed on the Lime#Botany disambiguation, is Tilia, a genus of about 30 species of trees. The "common lime tree" is Tilia × europaea, a naturally occurring hybrid between Tilia cordata and Tilia platyphyllos, two Tilia (lime) species. It is often the commonest Tilia species in urban areas and along avenues and streets, which I suppose, is how it got the name "common". Redirecting to the Lime dab catches Tilia, but misses the target Tilia × europaea. Whereas there is no difference between lime butterfly and common lime butterfly – those both redirect to Papilio demoleus. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There were just three pages linking to "common lime" as I looked at this today. Lepidoptera in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae: common lime butterfly, which is counter to the idea that the tree is a primary topic, Romford, and Hurstpierpoint. I've just fixed these three. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Ngram shows more frequent usage in the 1800s. Books search 1800–1813 points to "common lime stone" and "common lime water". Neither does a more contemporary search primarily point to the tree. HERE we see common usage in the context of tropical agriculture. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Tilia × europaea if it is the primary topic, or Disambiguate per Cremastra's draft. The specification of "common" implies a specific topic beyond just what is listed at Lime, so this redirect should likely not point to "Lime" on its own. There are enough entries to construct a standalone page, and people searching for "lime" are not looking for information on "common lime", and people searching for "common lime" are likely not looking for information on "lime" (as they would've dropped "common" from the search term imo), so the two pages should probably not be combined. To that end, retargeting to Tilia × europaea and establishing a disambig page at Common lime (disambiguation) seems like it could be worthwhile as well? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 14 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 Knife and Fork. asilvering (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Forkknife → Fortnite  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Likely originated as a joke redirect, but unclear target as is (fork or knife?). Recommending deletion, as it does not benefit Wikipedia. TNstingray (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The creator, Sandstein, explained the reasoning on the redirect page: The use of the name "fork knife" has been reported [18]. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is also a plausible mondegreen. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Masem, Redirect to Fortnite Battle Royale, where it is mentioned. I struggle to see how redirecting a to a linguistics article with the term as a passing example is helpful. We don't have redirects like breakhead(literal translation of Spanish word rompecabeza) targetting puzzle. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, Forkknife (without a space) unambigously refers to the fortnite meme. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Dvandva, where it's a literal translation of an example term. The reference to fortnite is unmentioned, and I expect anyone who wants information about that will be left at a loss, since the article has none, making the redirect inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No pages currently link here; there have been 33 page views in the past 90 days (16 on November 21). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Fork Knife was redirected to Knife and Fork at the recently concluded WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 28#Fork Knife. Jay 💬 16:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Per Jay, there is another redirect Fork Knife was discussed and concluded as retarget on WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 28#Fork Knife. Now as there is another redirect related to such is available, this should go the same way. Also the creators claim is not a vulnerable fact cause Fork Knife was also like that.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We now have four proposed places this can go: Fortnite, Knife and Fork, Dvandva, Fortnite Battle Royale. Unless there some reason one of them has an overwhelming claim of dominance over the others this is best left red since we can't really disambiguate misspellings. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Knife and Fork is a disambiguation page mainly consisting of topics that include the exact phrase "Knife and Fork" or similar; nothing on that page (besides Fortnite) seems plausible for this search term. In Dvandva, this is a word-for-word gloss of an example in Greek, so not a plausible search term there either. In my opinion the only plausible targets are the Fortnite ones; I'm not sure which of them is better. Deleting would also be reasonable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's no consensus, and moreover nothing approaching a consensus. A relist can only help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 21:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Knife and Fork (disambiguation), which covers the combination "fork-knife" and "knife-fork" -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Knife and Fork, which covers specific combinations of these two and also where the combination is explained. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Knife and Fork, a DAB covering the main options I was considering anyway. All other options mentioned above, including the current target, are listed here. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give further consideration to the option presented late in the discussion. (It's a bit unclear if the earlier participants are making primary topic claims.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 14 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 Wikitionary * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarcenet → Silk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

an alternate spelling of "sarsenet", a type of silk fabric. unmentioned in the target, though there are mentions of both spellings in other articles (but only two incoming links), and it gets steady views, so maybe there's a more fitting target i'm missing? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to History_of_science_and_technology_in_Africa#Central_Africa_4, where there's some discussion. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarcenet" does not mean "silk ribbon", but was a kind of silk fabric used for bed hangings and curtains, reference Clive Edwards, Encyclopedia of Furnishising Textiles (2007), p. 184.Unoquha (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    wowie haha i wonder why you would say that out of the blue like this, i'd hate to be the goober who would make such a predictable mistake. you saw nothing cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft wikt:sarcenet. Jay 💬 18:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft wikt to wikt:sarcenet, and do the same for Sarsenet as well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can anyone find sources supporting the notability of this type of silk as an encyclopedic topic? In my own (admittedly non-exhaustive) searching, I could not. If someone does find quality sources, then my vote will be to delete so this can RETURNTORED; if no one can provide them, then soft redirect per Jay and Utopes. Anonymous 22:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After 2 weeks no sources are found, but in any case an article can probably always be created from the redirect anyway. As a soft wikt it seems good and I'll make sarsenet right now as well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:27, 31 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 refine to ICC Champions Trophy#History. There's not the strongest consensus, but I see enough of one for refining to close this. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2021 ICC Champions Trophy → ICC Champions Trophy#2021 ICC Champions Trophy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misleading redirect, as there was never planned to be a 2021 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy. As such, there is no information at target article about a 2021 edition. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep: for historical reference I guess... Also information such as it being replaced with T20WC can be mentioned in the page. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree with the nomination. There was information about the 2021 edition at ICC Champions Trophy#History. Refine to there. Jay 💬 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From 2009, the tournament was changed to be held every four years. After the 2013 and 2017 tournaments, it is only natural that readers will look for the 2021 one. More so, with the forthcoming 2025 edition. Jay 💬 20:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reference to a "2021 competition" at ICC Champions Trophy#History is to say that it was never planned to occur. There is no history here. No one ever planned a 2021 Champions Trophy. This is exactly the sort of reason why articles about possible future tournaments are a really and idea and why redirects to phantom tournaments exist. This is an obvious delete. Really, really obvious - if you want a real laugh go back to the end of 2018 version of the Champions Trophy article and read the way in which people were tiring themselves in knots over this. Whilst we're at it, can we delete 2021 ICC Champions Trophy Final as well please? Blue Square Thing (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A redlink would clearly communicate there is no such event. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, what a redlink communicates is that there is expected to be an article or a redirect at the title. Jay 💬 17:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine per Jay, and I also oppose deletion per Jay's response to Pppery. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine per Jay. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:23, 10 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 delete. asilvering (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Basic Christian doctrine → Christian theology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The title is not intuitive at all, rather is it convoluted.

Futhermore, it can be asked if Christian theology can be considered a basic Christian doctrine.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I wouldm't worry about the pre-BLAR page history of a community-banned editor. Jay 💬 20:49, 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 article created. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Christian studies → Christian theology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This refers to an acedemic field.

I suggest deletion per WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There's not an overarching article at the moment on this field. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The article has been created. StAnselm (talk) 21:48, 14 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 Christian studies. asilvering (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Master of Christian Studies → Christian theology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This refers to an university degree, so the target is not good.

I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Christian studies, recently created. StAnselm (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christian studies now that there is a relevant article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:55, 14 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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Theological Controversy → Christian theology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Christian theology is not the only theology to have theological controversies. There is no good retarget.

Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ambiguous and no good target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, topic as phrased is impossibly overbroad, no clear redirect target. Carguychris (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This phrase is too general for any target or a disambiguation page to make sense. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:16, 21 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 Skyknight (disambiguation). Jay 💬 09:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sky knight → Sky Knight Helicopter Program  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Skyknight (disambiguation). Daily pageviews for the Douglas F3D Skyknight and Cessna 320 lead the Sky Knight Helicopter Program by about 20:1 but are close to one another, so WP:NOPRIMARY applies, while the helicopter program is clearly not the WP:PRIMARY topic. Since both the Douglas and the Cessna use the unusual and non-grammatical "Skyknight" spelling, it is not obvious to the uninitiated that their names should be spelled this way, so spelling alone is inadequate for disambiguation. Carguychris (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate retarget per nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:41, 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 retarget to Fever. asilvering (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Viral fever → Influenza  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Creator says this is an alternative name for influenza in Indian English. I can't find any quotations supporting this usage. Even if it does exist as an obscure term, it seems this redirect could mislead or confuse readers unfamiliar with it. Anonymous 14:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Fever. Some sources like [19] refer to 'viral fever' as a synonym for influenza, but others use it as a general phrase to cover any fever caused by a viral infection.[20][21] --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with retargeting to fever. Fever is a very common symptom of viral infections, so redirecting it to a specific disease might cause confusion. I considered this being its own article like viral hemorrhagic fever, but I'm not sure such an article is justifiable. VHF has relatively few causes, "viral fever" has many. Velayinosu (talk) 01:30, 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 retarget to No. 7. asilvering (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• N°7 → 7  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Strangely formatted redirect with an unclear function. Delete. Anonymous 14:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a Numero sign. Retarget to the dab page No. 7. —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to No. 7, clear synonym/alternative and valid way of typing the same thing. Fieari (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget N° redirects to the numero sign, so this is a valid search term. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:08, 16 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 💬 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• جرس → Bell  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

no particular affinity with arabic demonstrated in the target. not entirely sure there would be a more fitting target either, as nothing seems to be primarily known by this name consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 14:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:31, 17 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 Harry Potter#Reception. asilvering (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism of Harry Potter → Religious debates over the Harry Potter series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not all criticism of Harry Potter qualifies as a "religious debate". JJP_Master (she/they) 19:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to politics of Harry Potter, since it's categorized as controversies. Skemous (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

retarget per Ca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skemous (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the DAB page Controversy over the Harry Potter series, where all forms of criticism are linked. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Harry Potter#Reception, which includes "Literary criticism" and "Thematic critique" subsections. Criticism doesn't imply controversy, especially in a literary context. pburka (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Harry Potter#Reception per Pburka. Criticism isn't the same as a controversy, so don't retarget to the "controversy" set index. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Harry Potter#Reception, or preferably Harry Potter#Literary criticism as the start of a series of sections that all criticize Harry Potter under a number of different bases. I agree that controversy is not the same as criticism. These sections, under reception, do cover criticism. I prefer refining specifically to the literary criticism section specifically to skip over the financial success section that the reception heading starts with, which is not really about criticism. Fieari (talk) 05:51, 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 Move without redirect to Land drainage * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Land drainage (disambiguation) → Drainage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Now that Land drainage (disambiguation) has been merged into Drainage by @Klbrain:, this title is no longer required (noting it has history as a disambiguation page rather than as an article) because the target is not a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The page was there for a very long time (since 2007). The chances of it having incoming links from somewhere are high. Avoiding link rot is a worthwhile goal. While we certainly wouldn't create the page if it didn't exist today, that doesn't mean we have to delete it. There's no awards for tidiness here, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the page existed from 2007 but was moved to this title in 2016. Another redirect page with the same title was created by RussBot in 2010, and was deleted in 2016 for the page move. Jay 💬 21:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect to Land drainage, deleting/overwriting the current content at Land drainage in the process. This solution potentially resolves attribution and WP:G14 concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What Steel said. Jay 💬 19:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect per Steel. In any case, oppose leaving the redirect as is since G14 applies and it's flat out misleading as the target is not a dab page. Nickps (talk) 21:49, 7 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 retarget to Unemployment benefits. Jay 💬 18:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On the dole → Dole  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think that this redirect should target Unemployment benefits, not the Dole DAB page. I cannot think of any other way of using this phrase that would involve anything else listed there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Unemployment benefits as suggested by nom. There is even discussion in the first paragraphs of that page about this phrase. - Dyork (talk) 14:55, 14 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} 17:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Devlin Granberg → Boston Red Sox minor league players#Devlin Granberg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Draft:Devlin Granberg → Boston Red Sox minor league players#Devlin Granberg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-notable retired minor league player. See: Special:Diff/1167647687 Chew^{(V • T • E)} 05:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added the draft redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Content was merged to target. However it was the draft creator, who was the sole contributor who did the merge-and-redirect as well, so it should be fine to Delete both. Jay 💬 21:13, 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 Trans (*) moved here. Consensus that the topic formerly at Trans (*) should be moved to Trans*  — Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Trans* → Trans#Sociology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Transgender#Other terms. Trans* encompasses more labels, other than transgender and transsexual, and it's covered there. LIrala (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• uh... is that supposed to be a wildcard? i'm pretty sure that'd interfere with searches. delete if so, potentially speedily as... huh. there's no csd for redirects that interfere with functions like searches. weird. then just slow delete, i guess consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 13:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC) edit: for clarity's sake, retarget to transgender#other terms if not consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are about 2,700 titles in the article space that have a "*" in them. Include articles such as Sagittarius A* so I don't think there's any technical concern here. Skynxnex (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  should probably have remembered that q*bert exists lmao consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 10:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom as that is where this term is covered. This is a legitimate search term and even included in the OED. Thus, strong oppose deletion. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Move Trans (*) to this title per Duckmather. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Trans (*) to this title; there's already an article about this concept but the latter has a malformed title. Duckmather (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I didn't know that existed. I agree but I'm not sure if RfD is procedurally correct for this move. LIrala (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See [22]. LIrala (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically no, as ideally we would have a move discussion banner up on the affected articles for at least a week. Either way, if this is closed as retargeted, I believe Trans (*) will still have precedence over the section link at Transgender#Other terms, since Trans* appears to be the correct name for the topic and is not otherwise occupied, so unless somebody disagrees that it should occupy that title that is the most likely outcome. ASUKITE 16:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Trans (*) to this target, per Duckmather. Barring that, retarget to Trans (*), as this is exactly what that article is about. (That article also needs some serious cleanup for readibility and NPOV.) Fieari (talk) 05:56, 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 retarget to Gender symbol#Sexual orientation and gender politics. asilvering (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 🜬 → Antimony trioxide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Following ⚧'s RFD, retarget to Gender symbol § Sexual orientation and gender politics where it's mentioned, because this obscure alchemical symbol is neither mentioned or alluded to/illustrated in the current target. This symbol became increasingly used since 2016 with a lot of memes based in this image, which probably is based in this proposal.[23]. While these are primary sources, it should be noted that in gender symbol it is reliably sourced.

A dab for ⚨, a similar symbol, exists and that's a possible result for 🜬, or wiktfying, such as these. LIrala (talk) 04:26, 14 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 deleted by BusterD under WP:G6. (non-admin closure) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If I can't have you, I don't whant nobody baby → If I Can't Have You (Bee Gees song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misspelled lyric that also isn't mentioned at the target. (NPP action) jlwoodwa (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a typo, the redirect is not ment to be like that, sorry. Anthony2106 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it as WP:G7. Anthony2106 (talk) 03:47, 14 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 deleted by BusterD under WP:G6 and WP:G7. (non-admin closure) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hind Rajab Foundation → March 30 Movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Will modify target page instead, sorry for the mess. (Self request.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this under G7 since the author has requested deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:45, 14 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).