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. Hog Farm _Talk 00:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Proactionary → wiktionary:prospective  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete: soft redirect that points to wikt:prospective; "proactionary" does not have a wiktionary entry. There's page history of it previously being titled Prospectivism, hence the current link, but that's not really a word covered on wiktionary either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The redirect targets a entirely separate word, making it misleading. A Google search shows a lot of hits to Proactionary principle, but also the general concept of being pro-active. In any case, Wikipedia is not a dictionary for overly vague, non-encyclopedic terms. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:03, 6 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. A discussion of whether a hatnote should be present or not can be worked out at Talk:Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information. Hog Farm _Talk 00:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BFDI → Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Most people searching would be looking for BFDI (Battle for Dream Island). Of course, that page doesn’t exist and probably won’t for a while, so it should be retargeted to WP:BFDI. Also, this could count as WP:RFOREIGN, as the acronym is German. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep RFOREIGN doesn't apply here because of course an agency in the German government has affinity for German. Retargeting to WP:BFDI circumvents the very point of that essay, which is that we should build our mainspace infrastructure as if Battle for Dream Island had never existed. As we were doing until now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also strongly oppose adding a hatnote. That defeats the entire point of the BFDI essay entirely. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: If it does get deleted, it will have to be salted to prevent someone from taking advantage. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's already on the title blacklist, which will salt it as soon as it gets deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with hatnote. I still continue to think adding a hatnote to WP:BFDI is a good idea. I added a hatnote more than a year ago, which was reverted [1]. As one of the primary authors of WP:BFDI, I disagree that "the very point of the essay" is that "we should build our mainspace infrastructure as if Battle for Dream Island had never existed", nor I do not think any of the other authors believe it so. The point of the essay that a) BFDI is not wikinotable enough for an article and b) The lack of independent, reliable sources means that BFDI is unsuitable to be mentioned in the body of any other article. The point is not that we should systematically excise any mention of BFDI from Wikipedia. The previous title of the essay "Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not allowed on Wikipedia?" was misleading for this reason, so I removed the word "allowed".

This is an odd situation where a non-notable topic is clearly a primary topic over a notable topic, and I am not aware of any P&G that prohibits use of inter-namespace hatnotes. Most readers would WP:ASTONISHED to be redirected to an article about a German agency when most are searching for the web series. For this reason, even if such guideline existed, I would argue on the basis of WP:IAR.

As for the hatnote, I like the wording Heyaaaaalol added:

"BFDI" redirects here. The series Battle for Dream Island does not have its own article; see WP:BFDI for more information.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with hatnote per Ca. We should not be confusing our readers; if people are looking for Battle for Dream Island, an XNH (cross-namespace hatnote) to the one place we talk about why it isn't on Wikipedia seems very reasonable. I also know of no guideline that prevents this, and I know there are plenty of hatnotes to projectspace (often on DAB pages, but sometimes on articles such as Wikipedia administrators. I don't hate the idea of an XNR, but if Battle for Dream Island isn't one, this definitely shouldn't be. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with hatnote, as per above. If a user searches for BFDI expecting to find an article on the web series, the hatnote will guide them to the page explaining the rationale for why there is no article on the web series. Without the hatnote, a user searching for the web series might decide to make an article; a hatnote would prevent future edit warring. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. There is obviously affinity between a German government agency, and the German acronym it is primarily known by. No other acronyms of this type exist in mainspace. To that note, I strongly oppose adding a hatnote about a non-notable web series (discussed in zero locations in Wikipedia mainspace) to the page about the German government agency. The web series is not Wikipedia-notable, as the essay says. This is the only form of notability that we operate with on Wikipedia. The point of the essay is to not circumvent it. Hatnoting an essay about "why this redirect doesn't work" is against the entire purpose of the essay about the web series not being anywhere in mainspace.

Re: disruptive users, we don't go to popular pages and put up warnings on "don't vandalize this page", (too many beans for that). By extension, we wouldn't go to the location of the BFDI (the German agency) article and say "don't disrupt Wikipedia / break the redirect -> supported by this unofficial user-generated essay, which was written for users who choose to directly circumvent the consensus of WP:Notability", just because rogue fans have been loud about wanting this topic discussed here in the past. We have trust (without needing a hatnote) in the maturity and good-faith of users, and that they would not disrupt Wikipedia by recreating the page about the web-series against consensus. Not by assuming new users are pre-determined to disrupt and roguely create new pages against Wikipedia guidelines, and hatnoting in accordance with that assumption. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the hatnote is for readers, not editors. The argument that putting up warnings on popular pages that say "do not vandalize this page" are entirely targeted towards editors (vandals, but they're still users who are editing Wikipedia). This would be for readers to know why there is no article on the subject, not to inform them not to create an article on one. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers or editors, we treat them all the same. Regardless this totally against WP:PURPOSE; people read Wikipedia to view what Wikipedia considers notable, not be specifically informed of what Wikipedia thinks is not notable and doesn't cover. If it's not notable its not on Wikipedia mainspace, point blank. Hatnoting and presenting a user-generated essay would effectively make Wikipedia a soapbox for unverified and biased user opinions when Wikipedia is definitely not that. Unless its some sort of policy or info page like if you were to go to Wikipedia Administrators, you're taken to a policy page via the hatnote. Linking to essays in mainspace is never going to be it. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I guess I never thought about how linking to an essay would exactly go over. I agree that it should generally be avoided, but if there's one situation where it makes sense, it'd be this one.

I do think there should be a hatnote of some kind, but it doesn't necessarily need to link to that essay. Not sure if there's a good option other than that ("BFDI" redirects here. The series Battle for Dream Island does not have its own article, as it is not considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia or something along those lines possibly?); maybe just an explanatory hatnote that doesn't have a link? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See now I'm turned around. You and I seem to agree that BFDI is "not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia"; that's what is written in the newly proposed hatnote. But if it's not notable, it wouldn't be included even in a hatnote. Furthermore, Ca has said that "This is an odd situation where a non-notable topic is clearly a primary topic over a notable topic". Let's not get it twisted; Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information is absolutely a notable topic. And we've now said, based on the proposed hatnote, that "Battle for Dream Island" is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Granted, the web series might be a more popular topic than the German bureau, but popularity means nothing to notability, and does not mean we should add hatnotes based on unverified (from a reliable source), biased assertions of "popularity". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I seem to have gotten that quote backwards, apologies. I thought Ca was saying that the bureau was the "non-notable" topic of the two and that the web series was the "notable topic". My point still stands though that if a topic is not notable for Wikipedia, it cannot possibly be the primary topic on Wikipedia, because it's not even on Wikipedia. I was turned around because WP:PTOPIC requires there to be two articles that exist in the first place, much less for one to be primary over the other and be disambiguated accordingly. Because there is no article for the web series, it is impossible for a salted title to ever be the primary topic on Wikipedia over an existing Wikipedia article. WP:PTOPIC is a redirect to WP:Disambiguation, and we only have one article named "BFDI" to disambiguate on Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still generally think informing readers is a good idea. BFDI may not technically be able to be the primary topic by Wikipedia terms, but it is likely what the majority of our readers are looking for, and I would rather let them know that there is no BFDI article as opposed to making them look elsewhere on the site for an article that doesn't exist. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to any specific guideline when I said "primary topic", lowercase. The intent of most readers searching up this redirect is to read about the web series. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. "Primary topic" has a specific definition on Wikipedia and I thought you were referring to that. I disagree with your assessment on intent; people's intent when they search for "BDFI", is to arrive at the page that Wikipedia has for their search term. By using and searching Wikipedia, there is an unspoken agreement between the user and the site, that the material you will get when you search on Wikipedia, is only the material that is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines and what Wikipedia hosts on the site. Users put trust in Wikipedia when they search it, in that they won't be shown any material that breaks Wikipedia guidelines and this promise, including the inclusion of non-notable trivia about topics that share an acronym with other topics. Just as we wouldn't include trivia about some popular Youtuber who shares the same name as an existing page but is deemed not-notable, mentioning the web series on a page about the German bureau to whom it coincidentally shares an acronym with, is nothing more than trivia and non-notable cruft. The point of the essay is that it is nowhere in mainspace as its not notable for inclusion as an article, much less a mention. Not going to go much further because it seems we disagree here. I'd be interested to know if there's any precedent for this type of action i.e. including non-notable yet popular microcelebrities in hatnotes to pages that won't exist. This web series is just a flash in the pan and a mention or hatnote won't hold up without any sources or references on the site; in other news we're building an encyclopedia to presumably last forever. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:03, 10 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) (non-admin closure) Rusalkii (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disney Channel (South East Asian TV channel) → Disney Channel (Southeast Asian TV channel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No opinion on this, just listing it for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Default to keep unless the nominator or anyone else can explain why the status quo should change. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An actual opinion on this redirect has been voiced, so striking out my comment. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This one is unambiguous and correctly targeted. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Presidentman. Jay 💬 16:10, 13 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 Borg#Assimilation. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Species 5618 → Human  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

sci-fi fancruft!? no idea where the term originates, but it seems to be juggled around between at least two works consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 20:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Borg (or, perhaps, specifically to Borg#Assimilation), where the term is mentioned. Tevildo (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  should have figured it was star trek. star trek is the touhou of sci-fi. once you get into it, you notice that everything is referencing it... consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 20:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While yes, it's mentioned at the Borg article, it's unsourced cruft, and it shouldn't be...let's not let that stop us from deleting this, though. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the redirect to 'Human' is accurate as an alternate name. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't accurate, since this is a Star Trek topic, and not non-StarTrek human. We don't have an article on humans in Star Trek. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  maybe in the context of star trek, but we shouldn't have "mortally challenged" as a redirect to demon just because doom eternal said so consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 12:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps adding the appropriate entry to List of Star Trek aliens#S and redirecting there might be a solution. Tevildo (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  really? to refer to the one species that isn't an alien (in our pov, at least)? consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• at the moment, i'll lean towards deleting. while mentioned in borg and an apparently sort of important piece of nomenclature in star trek (don't quote me, though, i know nothing of star trek beyond spock looking a lot like barry mayfield), it doesn't seem to be elaborated on in any fitting targets, in any level of depth beyond just defining it, or with any serviceable amount of citations consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the only significant "Species zyx" from Star Trek is Species 8472, everything else is not important within Star Trek, as they all have regular species names in Star Trek otherwise, and wouldn't use Borg nomenclature outside of the Borg. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    is this implying that we could use this redirect as a way to out editors as borg? consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 20:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget to Borg#Assimilation. Clearly not a likely search term for any real-world reader looking for information about humans. To be honest, I think it's not a likely search term for a reader looking for information about anything, but if someone encounters the phrase elsewhere and wants to know what it means, the Borg article answers that question. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target and creator talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Borg#Assimilation. We have the information being searched for, let's provide it when asked. Fieari (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Borg#Assimilation. It's most certainly not a valid term for "Human" outside that specific fictional setting, but within that scope, it should lead somewhere. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 11 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. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also [2]. ToadetteEdit (2025 is here) 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pre previous discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 5 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. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strength of a Woman (film) → Lifetime (TV channel)#Films  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, but also, Hey man im josh, there were another 5 or 6 of these created by the same user at the same time that are pretty much the identical case, if you feel like adding them (in which case my delete vote applies to those too). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kenya national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Uganda national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Ghana national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Malaysia national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Indonesia national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Netherlands national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• United States national kho kho team → 2025 Kho Kho World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This team is not discussed in depth at the target. Delete per WP:REDYES. Cremastra (u — c) 15:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cremastra: It looks like you tried to do a batch nom of redirects, but 6 of them were not listed. I've added them for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh Thank you! I should have checked that MassRfD had worked; I thought it had. Cheers, Cremastra (u — c) 13:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Engineering and Computational Mechanics → Emerald Group Publishing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, redirect is misleading to anybody who searches this term. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher, Emerald Group Publishing has a few hundred academic journals. Most of these are not notable enough for standalone articles. Even so, I thought it would be useful to set up redirects in Category:Emerald Group Publishing academic journals along the lines of the journals of Category:Scientific Research Publishing academic journals (see: Talk:Scientific_Research_Publishing#Individual_journal_redirects?). I guess I could write a list along the lines of List of Hindawi academic journals if you think that's more clear. For a reader looking for information about a journal, I think a blank page is the least helpful. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 02:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The redirect isn't misleading, but it should be deleted per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of the article (unless a dedicated list is made, it could be redirected there) (see past discussion). The same applies for the other redirects to Emerald as well. Emerald is a huge publisher, with hundreds if not thousands of journals. Category:Scientific Research Publishing academic journals is very different, this is a shit predatory publisher, and the category is used as part of a defense system against citations to those predatory journals (see past discussion). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A blank page is not helpful, and the current target is not helpful either. Jay 💬 09:10, 12 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. Hog Farm _Talk 00:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Roy (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon anime characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Created as a result of pagemove vandalism from Roy (Pokémon) to draftspace by a now (currently) blocked (sock(?)). This was never a draft and shouldn't have a redirect from draftspace. Nominating here instead of taking it to any other CSD venue because of the unusual split history which has since been repaired, leaving nothing of value to be lost by this deletion, presumably. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 09:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gardenia (fictional character) → List of Pokémon characters#Sinnoh Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Maylene (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Sinnoh Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Fantina (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Sinnoh Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Byron (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Sinnoh Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Candice (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Sinnoh Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Volkner (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Sinnoh Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Gardenia (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Sinnoh Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Roark (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Sinnoh Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unmentioned Pokemon redirects to non-existent anchors mentioning "Sinnoh". As with the other for Hoenn, is ordered from oldest to most recently created. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Roxanne (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Brawly → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Flannery (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wattson (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Gym Leaders  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Sidney (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Elite Four  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Phoebe (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Elite Four  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Tate and Liza → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Winona (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Brawly (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wattson → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Winona (Pokemon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Kyo (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Brawly (Pokemon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Kyo (Pokemon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Tate & Liza → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wattson (Pokemon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Flannery (Pokemon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Roxanne (Pokemon) → List of Pokémon characters#Hoenn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There are 300+ redirects to this location. God knows how many of them are misleading redirects, and how few of the characters are actually mentioned. This list will encompass any character targeting the (nonexistent) section of "Hoenn Gym Leader" or "Hoenn Gym Trainer". There are many more that target "Hoenn" as well, and to ensure that everything is captured, I'll grab the "Hoenn" redirects that are also listed among the "Gym Leader" and "Gym Trainer" titles. With that, here are some. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Eh, as it happened I just bundled all of the non-mentioned Pokemon titles that mentioned "Hoenn" in their slightly different (but equally non-existent) section anchors (more than just the Gym Leaders as I originally planned). While I might've liked to break it down further, because there are so many characters that might be in the same bucket, but all a part of the Hoenn region, this should hopefully allow them to be discussed at once, and it wasn't too much more of a hassle than I expected (as this nomination would've otherwise excluded, say, Sidney and Phoebe of this Elite Four, presumably). Two extra redirects. Also, as it happens all of these redirect nominations within the bundle are sorted from oldest to most recent at the bottom. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. None are mentioned at the target, and none of them are individually noteworthy within the scope of the franchise to a point where their re-inclusion is justified. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:33, 5 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).