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 01:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Deep-sea fangly fish → Anglerfish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete; this is not a term anyone uses, especially in the literature Anthropophoca (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term is included in Urban Dictionary.[1] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So are a lot of other things. But that does not necessarily make them notable/suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, nor useful as redirects. Plant🌱man (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems to be a Homestar Runner reference, to a figure who resembles an anglerfish. [2] (archive). It's not an anglerfish, and is WP:FANCRUFT anyway. Aprzn (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it turns out to be popular enough that many people actually use the term then it could be redirected to "deep-sea angler" (Ceratioidei) since i'm aiming to rework the Lophiiformes page for better scope, but we'd have to wait for what other people think Anthropophoca (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 23:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Baleet. As much as I love HR, creating such a redirect based on its usage in one cartoon there is completely inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obscure fandom synonym at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 01:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Linux MMORPGs → Video games and Linux#Massively multiplayer online role-playing games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No such list or section in target article. (However, this redirect is a {{R with history}} due to being an article prior to its redirection in 2009.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looking at the history, it was a pretty meager, unsourced, WP:CROSSCAT of a list, so I don't think there's anything substantial to preserve here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CROSSCAT and these aren't "Linux MMORPGS" but MMORPGS that run on Linux. WINE exists. Polygnotus (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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) 00:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• User:203.122.246.210/Kwinana Cogeneration Plant → Kwinana Cogeneration Plant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Needs deletion Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nominator doesn't give any reason why this should be deleted, but I'm guessing it's because it's a subpage of an unregistered user? User to mainspace redirect are almost always fine when they are in the userspace of registered users (other than base user pages, which should be converted to soft redirects) but I don't recall any previous discussion about IP user space. This is a {{R from move}}, with the article having been written here in 2010 by Michelle JP (for no immediately obvious reason), the same editor who moved it to mainspace. Michelle JP hasn't edited since 2015 so it seems unlikely they are around to explain (and far from guaranteed they remember why even if they are). Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Super Dromaeosaurus could you please explain why? Plant🌱man (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Makes no sense to keep a redirect to an article in the userspace of an IP forever, especially since IPs are not static in the long run. 15 years. Polygnotus (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. This is the result of the creator fixing an obvious error 3 minutes after article creation in 2008. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Midland Cogeneraton Venture → Midland Cogeneration Venture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misspell. Super Ψ Dro 13:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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) feminist🩸 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnny's Jr. → Johnny & Associates#Trainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Confusing redirect over Johnny & Associates and Starto Entertainment. Absolutiva (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundle Johnny's Jr. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They have a ubiquitous presence in the Japanese pop media industry and have their own article on the Japanese Wikipedia. Several groups make independent record deals and have acting projects before they "graduate" and make their proper debut. The group did get renamed "Junior" Johnny & Associates rebranded themselves as Starto, though. I would say to keep it in their original redirect because the name Johnny's is associated with the former company. lullabying (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the expansion of "summary" and "overview" about the details of musicians on both predecessor and successor. Absolutiva (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As @Lullabying has said, they are an important part of the history of the agency. Besides, Junior's presence in Starto has already changed, forming new groups (still to debut). If any confusion persists, then there should be a redirect to "Starto Juniors", rather than delete "Johnny's Jr." to take people to the new trainee groups. SugaShikaoFans (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Ribbon. asilvering (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cotton ribbon → Ink ribbon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

what is this doing here anyway? was about to retarget to ribbon since cotton isn't mentioned in the current target but is mentioned there, but it's only mentioned in passing in the lead, so is it even worth it? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old-fashioned typewriter ribbons were made of inked cotton. This magazine describes the manufacturing process. This book describes how it worked (and says that the IBM Selectric, which is what I learned to type on, used a plastic substitute). You can use those sources to expand Ink ribbon if you'd like to.

The redirect could become a disambiguation page, since ribbons made of cotton are (well, mostly "were") used in apparel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ribbon, where it is mentioned, and is the most logical target. I find it highly unlikely that the searcher would be looking for ink ribbons, even if said ribbons used to be made of cotton and the sourced mentions are added to that article. I find it much more likely that a searcher for cotton ribbons would still find information useful to them at ribbon, even if cotton is only mentioned once. Fieari (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ribbon per Fieari. Those looking for ink ribbons will find a link in the article (although that does feel awkwardly wedged in), and perhaps a link should be added at ribbon (disambiguation) too? Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Efraim Karsh#Islamic Imperialism. asilvering (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Islamic imperialism → Islamic State  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Targets a subtopic - other previous options were List of Muslim states and dynasties and Caliphate. Tule-hog (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spread of Islam would seem a more pertinent target. 2601:642:4F84:1590:B4BC:9F58:E79E:AF6 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget somewhere else per WP:RECENTISM. 67.209.130.82 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget perhaps to Umayyad Caliphate as they, unlike their predecessors and successors, pursued policies that could be unambiguously characterized as imperialistic. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Efraim Karsh#Islamic Imperialism? Unsure of whether the phrase would be more likely to be used by people looking for the Ummayads, the Ottomans, IS, and so on, I did a quick Google search, and most of the results were about this book. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per WP:RNEUTRAL, we should only retarget Islamic imperialism to Spread of Islam if this usage is "established" and "used in multiple mainstream reliable sources," as this would be a {{R from non-neutral title}}. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should just be made into a disambiguation page since the retarget votes also seem unsure as to what the best target would be and are just citing their personal opinions. Yue🌙 02:45, 4 March 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 💬 17:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Criticism of Islam. (Or maybe, per StainedGlassCavern's suggestion, to Efraim Karsh#Islamic Imperialism.) This is a politically loaded term usually used for polemic purposes, most notably (to my knowledge) by Efraim Karsh, as noted above. Criticism of Islam is an overview of these types of issues, including the history of conquest and similar issues, so this seems like the most neutral and useful target. R Prazeres (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target suggestion has come up since the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Efraim Karsh#Islamic Imperialism HudecEmil (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. The nomination was clear about South Italian retargeting to the disambiguation page. However, there was a view that Southern Italy was the primary topic for it. The nomination's second requirement was for the language-based redirects to have a singular target, and retargeting them to the disambiguation page satisfies that. Jay 💬 14:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• South Italian → Neapolitan language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Southern Italian language → Neapolitan language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• South Italian language → Neapolitan language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• South-Italian language → Sicilian language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The first one most definitely ought to go to the Southern Italian disambiguation page. The other three should at the very least be consistent with each other. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glottolog calls Neapolitan 'Continental Southern Italian', but we def shouldn't have diff spellings going to Neapolitan and Sicilian. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Southern Italian All of these terms appear roughly equivalent, so they should point to the same place. And they all also seem ambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Southern Italian Languages is not ideal, but would work better than the alternatives mentioned so far. If the intent is to indicate autochthonous Romance languages only, Southern Italo-Romance is the usual label. Both Southern Italian and Southern Italian Language would very likely be interpreted by non-expert readers as referring to varieties of Italian, e.g. Italian as spoken in the south of Italy, not the indigenous languages of the area. As for Neapolitan, the language of Naples is one of the several Southern Italian Languages, i.e. part of the Southern Italo-Romance continuum. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "South Italian" is only very rarely a linguistic term - Retarget to Southern Italy. The others are linguistic, and I'll let others fight over them. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Southern Italy is mentioned at the Southern Italian DAB page. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not enough - the meaning as a general adjective for people, things and places in or from Southern Italy is clearly WP:PRIMARY for it. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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) 00:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hitler war crime → The Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I just created this redirect. I do not know where it should redirect. Should it redirect to Nazi Party, War crimes in World War II, or somewhere else Mast303 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to German war crimes#World War II. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to war crimes subsection per Yovt. Carguychris (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This should probably be targeted to German war crimes as opposed to the section, since Hitler's armed forces did war crimes in other wars (e.g. the Condor Legion/Bombing of Guernica). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Adolf Hitler § Path to defeat says that he was placed in the first list of war criminals and there were 7 indictments against him. Jay 💬 11:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have a neat solution to "I just created this redirect. I do not know where it should redirect": don't create it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perfectly sums up my knee-jerk reaction to reading the nomination, although I wasn't sure how to say it without coming across as biting the newbie. Leaning delete because of the general absurdity of this whole situation. — Anonymous 01:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a commonly used phrase (it'd be "Hitler's war crimes"). Add that to the ambiguity and uncertainty of the nom itself and this all adds up to a redirect not worth keeping. Rusalkii (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Kumamoto. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kumamoto, Japan → Kumamoto Prefecture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I see this redirect has some unusual history, with its most recent edit being unilateral retargeting to its current destination a few years ago by a dead account with under fifty edits. The formatting seems more indicative of a city name than a prefecture, and I believe it should be retargeted to Kumamoto. — Anonymous 20:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• REtarget to Kumamoto (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Kumamoto? Or to Kumamoto (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Kumamoto (disambiguation) per IP. There are many places in Japan called Kumamoto; it's like saying "New York, USA". Plant🌱man (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Kumamoto (disambiguation) per anon for now since we don't have consensus for a primary target --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Kumamoto. If the capital city is the primary topic among all subjects named "Kumamoto", surely it's the primary topic among the subset of those subjects in Japan. If the capital city is not the primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be moved to the base title. Either way, this redirect should point to the title "Kumamoto". jlwoodwa (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Kumamoto WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT applies here. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Kumamoto per jlwoodwa. -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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) 00:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rachel Dixon (formerly Wright, née Jordache) → Rachel Jordache  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Overly specific, implausible search term. Rachel Dixon already exists as a redirect to the same target. Created yesterday, seemingly for the sole purpose of this diff. However I have removed the redirect, so currently obsolete. it's lio! | talk | work 11:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, far too specific for anyone to search or find in the wild. ApexParagon (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The redirect was (righly) reviewed by User:DannyS712 bot III. I found the link "in the Wild" from Here or possibly Here - both on first page of a Goole Search. Also this edit by the OP actually removed knowledge from the article - classic case of putting the wiki policy Horse before the "sum of all human knowledge" cart. Tiny Particle (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tiny Particle: I don't believe that the previous surnames of the character Tiffany Eglin is known for portraying is necessary information in the article; feel free to add it back if you want to, I'm not watching it. Either way, I'm not disputing that the former surnames are relevant information to the subject - it just shouldn't exist as a redirect due to it being overly long and specific. Rachel Dixon and Rachel Jordache already exist as redirects - for the former, if someone really wanted to look up the character by her former surname, Rachel Dixon alone would suffice. Please know that I'm only acting in good faith - the only reason I came across this was my shortdesc drive. Cheers, it's lio! | talk | work 12:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very specific wording, feels unnecessary. – Meena • 22:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a ridiculous redirect - Rachel Dixon and Rachel Wright are the correct search terms and this redirect is overkill.Rain the 1 11:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep redirect is accurate, usage is found in the wild -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tiny Particle and the IP editor. In addition to their points this redirect will assist search engines (internal and external) in directing people using similar search terms to the content they are looking for without inconveniencing anybody else. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TP's claim that there were links found in the wild is incorrect; it was merely the text (on a couple fan sites), without a link to the WP redirect. Just because a fan site formats it thus doesn't mean we need a redirect to match; that's not what redirects are for. Besides that, again, this is overly specific, and we don't need to be making redirects out of implausibly formatted search terms based on this sort of reasoning. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What's the point of these overly specific redirects? We would have to create a million other redirects such as Hillary Clinton (née Rodham) or Melania Trump (née Knavs). It's useless to have it around; there is only one notable Rachel Dixon and such distinction is superfluous. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure that the people who come from the Fandom page will look for "Rachel Dixon" if they don't find "Rachel Dixon (formerly Wright, née Jordache)". Plant🌱man (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, exactly my point. it's lio! | talk | work 10:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How does it follow that if we create one redirect "We would have to create a million other redirects" - bizarre Tiny Particle (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if we did have to create other redirects (which we don't), such redirects would be equally useful and so there would be benefits to the encyclopaedia and no downsides. Indeed we have {{R from currently unnecessary disambiguation}} to keep track of redirects like this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 07:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yangchuanosaurus" zigongensis → Yangchuanosaurus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This seems like an implausible search terms given that Yangchuanosaurus zigongensis already exists. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AFFINITY – quotation marks have a specific meaning in binomial names. For example, see "Anomalocaris" briggsi, "Baru" huberi, and "Brachiosaurus" nougaredi. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Quotation marks don't seem to be commonly used for this name, though. Scientific literature seems to just say it without quotes in this instance ApexParagon (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Checking the relevant scientific literature, as far as I've been able to tell this species is only ever called "Szechuanosaurus" zigongensis (with or without quotes) or Yangchuanosaurus zigongensis (without quotes), and never "Yangchuanosaurus" zigongensis with quotes. Unless I'm mistaken and this last form of the species' name is used in an article somewhere, I say delete because it doesn't exist in the scientific literature in that form and therefore not likely to be actually searched for. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Participants were split between supporting the nomination, versus keeping the page as a redirect.Meanwhile the nominator's IP address has been blocked. Jay 💬 19:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DXYD → Brigada Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Restored the article or Delete There was WP:BLAR due to blank and redirect also could be Brigada Group is the mentioned at target. 112.207.123.170 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and send to AfD, improper venue for contesting BLARs per WP:BLAR. Randi🦋^Talk_Contribs 21:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  give wp:blar a couple weeks, it's going through a bit of a discussion... or two... or 3.5. it's a real mess~ consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 19:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. while there are a lot of cases for restoring blars... it was a stub with one government pdf as a source. it's unlikely that people would be scrambling to restore this one for any reason beyond procedure. no opposition to recreation (as a redirect or article), so long as it's got more reliable sources than the zero we currently have consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 19:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Callsign is mentioned in the article's list of stations. Besides, a redirect doesn't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Brigada Group#Stations, that specifically mentions this. Or, make it into an article, assuming you can find more sources than that 1 PDF. Plant🌱man (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 01:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nehruvian rate of growth → Hindu rate of growth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Nobody has used this term except fringe Indian right-wing. Capitals00 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirects don't have to be neutral. You yourself admit it's used by some. Should probably be mentioned at the target, though. — Anonymous 22:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as people still use it, even if those people are “fringe Indian right-wing”. Plant🌱man (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).