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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Residue classResidue class → Modular arithmetic#Residue class  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This should probably point at quotient ring since the term can equally be used for residue classes modulo any ideal (see also the redirect Residue class ringResidue class ring). 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is true that Residue class ring contains the definition of residue classes modulo an ideal, but qualify it as "sometimes used", and does not use the phrase otherwise. As far as I know, "residue" is a old fashioned term, especially in the case of rings, where one uses more commonly "class modulo an ideal". Nevetheless, the term is still commonly used in modular arithmetic, where it predates for centuries the concepts of equivalence classes and quotient rings — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs) 01:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More useful as is. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:00, 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 agreement to retarget. There is support for the nom's idea and how to deal with the transclusions. The transclusions should be changed prior to retargeting. Jay 💬 17:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:MLSTemplate:MLS → Template:MLS player  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not looking to delete this one, but wouldn't it make more sense for this redirect to point to Template:Major League Soccer, the general league navbox, since "MLS" is the shortened name of the league, and would be consistent with other north American sports leagues where Template:NFL redirects to Template:National Football League and similar. I would just make the change for logic's sake, but there's many transclusions of the current target that go through the redirect instead of directly invoking the template. Perhaps a bot to make that change could be run and then the redirect aimed at the more logical target. oknazevad (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Logically, I support a retarget as it makes the most sense. However, this is transcluded on many player pages at the moment. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget a WP:BOTREQ can be requested to change the existing transclusions prior to retargetting -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:36, 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 keep and hatnote. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Check SixCheck Six → Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The source title is ambiguous: it could refer to the game studio (Check Six Studios, which the current target covers), or it could refer to the colloquialism (now covered in Clock position#In media and culture after Special:Diff/1265622848). I'm not sure which target is better. Does WP:DIFFCAPS come into play? PleaseStand (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hatnote at current target {{redirect|Check Six|the expression "check your six"|Clock position}}. I think the current target is correct since Check Six Studios redirects there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Shhh. Jay 💬 16:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck to make this a more balanced discussion. Jay 💬 14:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Check Six GamesCheck Six Games (specifically this revision) and retarget this redirect (along with Check Six StudiosCheck Six Studios) there. I do not believe the current situation to be helpful since the subject of these redirects worked on only one project, but that will probably be up to a WP:AFD discussion after the respective WP:BLAR is reverted. Either way though, I oppose "keep"ing the nominated redirect since the phrase "Check Six" does not seem to be an alternative name for the respective, probably defunct game studio. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any opinions on restoring Check Six Games?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, Check Six Studios and Check Six Games already redirect and this is a shortened title. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Check Six Games would also be acceptable, though I doubt much about the individual companies notability since they only seem to have produced this game and gone defunct immediately after. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and hatnote per Shhh. I'm okay with the title case 'Check Six' being primary for the studio. FWIW, I oppose restoration of Check Six Games. It was created for the sole purpose of developing Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly and the article has much detail about this already. I can't imagine what more could be discussed in a stand-alone article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:45, 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 Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Vettukathi → Machete  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

a south indian cutty boy (that's the formal term, right?), apparently mostly used to cut coconuts. seemingly probably notable on its own, but it's not mentioned in the article, and doesn't even seem to be a type of machete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this an Indian English language term? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a mention at List of premodern combat weapons. There it is listed as a South Indian axe-like sword (although I don't like its definition of "axe-like"). I'm undecided whether it's better to target there or WP:REDLINK delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:01, 22 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 💬 08:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• you know what? weak retarget to list of premodern combat weapons#axe-like swords in absence of a better target. doesn't seem like it'll get much else, so... consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 13:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Retargeting to a list of similar items doesn't adequately identify what this subject is. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No article scope, this can at best be a one paragraph mention at the target. Weak retarget to the list because if the classification there is incorrect, someone would try to correct it. Jay 💬 14:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close an old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like a standard WP:RETURNTORED case – delete. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:47, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of United States political parties by time holding the presidency → List of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The target article seems to not contain such a list. Steel1943 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, especially considering that the number of U.S. political parties who have won the presidency can be counted without running out of fingers. Carguychris (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article was deleted in 2011 and it was redirected. The explanation for this deletion was just "redundant". But I don't see the calculation of party control of the US presidency anywhere on Wikipedia. Am I missing where it was moved to or was this deletion in error or vandalism? Should this content be restored? Randy Schutt (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the subject of this redirect has any place on Wikipedia per WP:NOTTRIVIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it appeared in 2011 was a simple numbered list of cumulative days (and years) of how long the various political parties held the presidency. As there were no sources cited, it appears to have been built on original research. It likely would not pass muster as a standalone list by today’s standards. Drdpw (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The original list was rightfully BLARed, and this redirect is too specific given the information provided at the current target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not useful as a redirect. Drdpw (talk) 00:53, 29 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 💬 08:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Measuring judicial ideology → Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Leftover redirect from a reverted undiscussed move. Either way, there's no evidence this phrase is exclusive to the United States, or even that the target page discusses the subject of the nominated redirect at all. Steel1943 (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is no reason to keep this page. Randy Schutt (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is also possible to ideologically measure jurists in nations other than the United States. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't keep: As others have stated, keeping this targeted at the United States doesn't make sense given that judges everywhere have ideological leanings. It may make sense to retarget, but I can't quickly find something that makes sense (e.g., Judicial ideology and Judicial bias don't exist). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:33, 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. ✗plicit 14:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Jewish Justices → Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Jewish Justices → Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not inherently evident that readers are intending to locate the target, a subject exclusive to the United States, considering justices are in other countries as well. Steel1943 (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or maybe disambiguate. History of the Jews in Australia#Public life mentions some Jewish justices in Australia, so Jewish justices aren't a US-specific topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, given that there is only one article in Wikipedia with a longstanding section titled "Jewish justices", and that this is likely the primary topic of the term, given that a Google search for "Jewish justices" brings up almost entirely hits for Jewish justices in the U.S. Supreme Court. BD2412 T 15:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete U.S. bias. Just create a proper redirect from Jewish justices (United States Supreme Court) to replace these bad redirects. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Target doesn't cover Australian justices as pointed out by Mx. Moreover there is another List of Jewish American jurists that has got Associate Justices in the US Supreme Court. Jay 💬 08:23, 29 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. Jay 💬 08:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Circuit justiceCircuit justice → Supreme Court of the United States#Justices as circuit justices  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Circuit JusticeCircuit Justice → Supreme Court of the United States#Justices as circuit justices  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It's not inherently evident that this phrase has exclusivity to the United States. Recommendation is either "delete" (preferred) or "retarget to Circuit court". Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This nomination raises a valid point if another country can be identified in which the term "Circuit Justice" is used. However, I am not aware of any, and my quick Google search did not turn any up. Most places with a court called the Circuit Court use the title "judge" rather than "justice," which helps explain why "circuit justice" does not seem to turn up outside the U.S., and weighs against retargeting to "Circuit Court." Within the context of the United States, the redirect is valid and useful. So my tentative vote is "Keep," but I'm open to changing this to a disambiguation page if significant usage outside the U.S. federal system is found. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If there were other contexts (countries, whatever) where "circuit justice" were used, then the proper course would be to edit the redirect page and make it a disambiguation page (or perhaps choose one of those meanings and make it a full-fledged article). Which would not require a discussion here at Rfd. WP:R#CRD And if none of those (potential? non-existent? merely non-encyclopedic as to the English wikipedia?) other contexts exist, then the existing redirect should stay. Neither of those cases support deletion. That said, I don't think there is any meaningful other usage of the term (but since I'm not a domain expert in these hypothetical potentially non-existent areas of knowledge, why would I be?). Further, the deletion proposal does not engage with the ten criteria at WP:R#DELETE, and it doesn't seem like any of them apply. Disclosure: I created this redirect 12 years ago, I think because there were some redlinks to the term. There are, however, not so many links that removal of the redirect would require a herculean amount of work to clean up (far from it). jhawkinson (talk) 12:51, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Justice positions → Supreme Court of the United States#Justices as circuit justices  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There's no evidence that this phrase has any affinity to the current target, or the United States at all for that matter. Also, the singular version, Justice position, does not exist and never has existed. Steel1943 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The word "position" (or "positions") does not appear in the section that is currently targeted. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete highly ambiguous -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. BLAR'd within one day after the first edit in 2005, the draft stub needn't be kept. Jay 💬 08:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I concur with the views stated above. Drdpw (talk) 11:37, 29 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Golden Age of America → Second Gilded Age  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Golden Age of America" is not used by any source to describe the Second Gilded Age. There is no justification for this redirect. guninvalid (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rochambeau1783, please provide a source for referencing the usage of "Golden Age of America" in place of the Second Gilded Age. guninvalid (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First G-hit for the phrase is Trump Proclaims ‘The Golden Age of America Begins Right Now’, Wall Street Journal, Jan 20, 2025 --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think this has any widely agreed meaning, but is rather a phrase used for any period of American history that someone thinks of fondly. I can see sources using it for the American Revolutionary War, the first half of the 20th century, the future, and more. As a result, any specific target has a high risk of misleading readers, and the phrase is probably too general for a disambiguation page to work. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, ambiguous, unsourced, now hopelessly entangled in evolving political rhetoric. A better target may be the Second inauguration of Donald Trump, but I'd prefer to wait for secondary sources to emerge, as the phrase is still winding its way through the news cycle. Carguychris (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This redirect appears to be based on a confusion of the meanings of 'Golden Age' and 'Gilded Age'. 'Golden Age' is used in a positive sense to describe a time of purported flourishing (e. g., Islamic Golden Age); 'Gilded Age' has a pejorative connotation implying that the era was one of corruption merely 'gilded' over. Directing a reader from 'Golden Age' to 'Gilded Age' would be confusing and uninformative. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Vague. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Impossibly ambiguous, inconsistently used in literature and in common discourse when used at all, so there's nothing we can reliably point it at. Fieari (talk) 01:28, 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).