Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 0 75 0 75
TfD 0 0 5 0 5
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 25 0 25
AfD 0 0 8 0 8

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


Shortcuts

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

December 4[edit]

Palatin Technologies[edit]

This is a pharmaceutical company that has been involved in the development of several drugs with WP articles. The redirected to article doesn't say much about the company, and other articles about drugs it was involved in also contain other information about the company. Either it's notable, in which case it should be a WP:REDLINK, or else search results would be more helpful than the redirect. (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IL-5 antibody[edit]

There are several drugs that are antibodies against Interleukin-5, but I'm not sure a dab page or set index would be helpful because none of them are commonly referred to as "IL-5 antibody" (because it's too ambiguous). (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reebok or nike[edit]

This redirect should instead be called "Reebok NOR nike" because neither are mentioned at the target article 💀 Jokes aside, this is allegedly a very niche misheard lyric of the main chorus. Google searching this phrase only comes up with reebok and nike related topics, none of which are the song, nor this lyric. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liz (garfield)[edit]

Improperly capitalized, has received only four pageviews in the past 90 days. QuietCicada - Talk 03:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iran's Metropolises News Agency[edit]

A news agency that is no longer mentioned at the target title. It was formerly present as one uncited word in a list, but I can't imagine this would be a likely search term for this news agency, nor one that would give readers any useful information about it. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of gender names[edit]

Delete. The meaning of "gender name" is too ambiguous, hence why it is a red link. The history is not worth keeping, as it has been merged with List of animal names. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be consensus that this cannot be deleted due to attribution; however, there is not consensus on what to do with the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 02:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Project Things"[edit]

This title's content on the page does not have any specific affinity with being put in quotations. I presume the quotations' existence comes from the one time it was referred to as "Project Things" in a Mozilla blog post. Beyond that, the quotes simply impede this title's possible use cases, and its use of quotes in one blog post does not seem to justify the need for this title to be in quotes here. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Utopes I forgot to remove the quotes, just relocate without quotes. Greatder (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possession (upcoming film)[edit]

Upcoming film redirect which is no longer upcoming. The film was released in september, and pageviews fell off a cliff when the links were removed. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 3[edit]

No era penal[edit]

Seems to mean "it wasn't a penalty", which seems to be in context to a penalty outcry that took place during this match. This phrase, however, is unmentioned and doesn't appear to be very helpful without context. Could very well mean that the "redirect title is in agreement that it's not a penalty" Utopes (talk / cont) 22:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forschungsgemeinschaft Automobil-Technik[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Back to top[edit]

Delete to make way for a similar (or even identical) general-use version of {{Astro back to top}}: back to top .

{{Back to top}} has only 1 transclusion, on Maile66's talk page from last year ([1]), and only 2 links. One link is in a WP:VP/T archive from a year ago (also by Maile66), and the other link was created ~2 weeks ago by Mathglot ([2]). Also, {{Skip to top}}, the current target, has only 13 transclusions and 8 links, so neither the redirect nor the target are quite popular, so I don't imagine this change would be very disruptive.

The transcluded text of {{Astro back to top}} has been in use in the WP:Astronomy space since at least 2016, and in use on non-astro pages List of Johnson solids & List of Wenninger polyhedron models since 2017 ([3] & [4], courtesy ping to Tomruen), so I think the transcluded text would benefit from centralization & standardization, as well as being at a more intuitively named location.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. Transclusions/links or not, the title seems like a reasonable search term for its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Steel1943: a link to {{Skip to top}} can be added to the documentation, like in the see also section, for users to easily find that lightly-used template.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm trying to understand what you want to do, exactly. Are you proposing that people use {{Astro back to top}} instead, because I just can't see that happening; it a non-intuitive name for non-astronomy contexts. Or are you saying you want to keep the template {{Back to top}}, but redirect it to something else? I don't have an objection to that, if it performs the same operation, maybe with even more features. I would be opposed to removing it entirely, because that's the expression I think of first, when I want to perform that operation, and I assume a sufficient number of other people do, too, to make it worth retaining, as redirects are cheap. Are you trying to remove it entirely? What would be the benefit of that? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Mathglot: I'd like to move {{Astro back to top}} to {{Back to top}}, adjusting the wording in the documentation as necessary, and redirect {{Astro back to top}} to {{Back to top}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is what I'm getting at in my previous statement ... sort of. This seems like an issue for template deletion or merging via WP:TFD. Seems taking this to WP:RFD is like putting the cart before the horse. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, this being a template redirect, there's certainly some grey area to someone that doesn't frequent RfD, but I'm happy to relist at TfD if that satisfies everyone, or just keep this RfD up.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is your plan to replace the transclusions of {{Skip to top}} with {{Astro back to top}}? Steel1943 (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, I understand you better now, I think. So, it sounds basically that what you'd like to do is to usurp the name 'Back to top' for the functionality you have now at 'Astro back to top', whether by deleting 'Back to top', or by swapping the two and turning the former into a redirect to the latter, is that right?
At first glance, I would oppose this, because the functionality appears to be too different. The main issue, in my view, is that 'Back to top' uses absolute positioning and was designed to pair well with the functionality of {{skip to bottom}}, which also uses absolute positioning. By design, they complement each other, and provide one-click navigation from the top of the page to the bottom and back again, and they can both be placed together anywhere on the page—at the top, the bottom, or anywhere else on the page and they always do the same thing: they provide complementary "skip" links at the top and bottom of the page. (And, by default, to the ToC, unless you suppress it). As an illustration, the next line of wikicode below this one contains the wikicode {{skip to bottom}}{{skip to top}}, but you won't see it here.
↑ To top of page
By taking over the name 'Skip to top', the individual functionality of 'Back to top' will be lost, as will the complementary, paired nature of the two templates together. There is an additional, less serious objection, in that 'Back to top' uses a single arrow character (copied from some other page nav templates), whereas 'Astro' uses a chevron image, but I think that difference can be handled one way or another.
As a counterproposal, I can see an alternative that will get you what you want, I believe, which would be to modify 'Back to top' to allow new param |arrow= and rewrite 'Astro' as a wrapper of 'Back to top' with |arrow=<chevron image thingy> and |abs=no (already supported). If we do this, then users of 'Astro' will see no change at all on any of the pages where it is used, and neither will users of 'Back to top'; i.e., this proposal is completely backwards-compatible for users of both templates. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Sorry for scrmabling the name of the redirect and the name of the template, but I think you can see what I mean, but if not, I'll redact the previous message.) Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sandboxed it; here's what it would look like on the 'Skip to top' side of things:
 To top of page
  • {{Skip to top/sandbox|abs=no|arrow=chevron}}
⬆ To top of page
  • {{Skip to top/sandbox|abs=no|arrow=⬆}}
 To top of page
  • {{Skip to top/sandbox|abs=no|arrow=[[File:Up arrow green.svg|18px|link=#top]]}}
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mathglot:
"So, it sounds basically that what you'd like to do is to usurp the name 'Back to top' for the functionality you have now at 'Astro back to top', [...] is that right?" - right.
"By taking over the name 'Skip to top', [...]" - no, I don't want to touch {{Skip to top}}.
It does not look like the features of {{Astro back to top}} are easily compatible with {{Skip to top}}; there are many differences:
  1. The name. {{Astro back to top}} produces: back to top , exactly what it says, and does so very simply, without any parameters.
  2. {{Astro back to top}}'s optional, used, |anchor=, |text=, and |inline= parameters for additional functionality.
  3. And of course the obvious visual differences. {{Skip to top}}'s text is very small, and has a box around it, which is fine, for something inside the category box, or above the title horizontal line, but that's not the use case for {{Astro back to top}}.
So I'd rather not overcomplicate {{Skip to top}}, and, by extension, presumably other "Skip to X" templates, since they work together in some way, by adding several new parameters to drastically change {{Skip to top}}'s appearance, to basically turn it into a different template, all while making it less user-friendly in the process by adding several required parameters just to achieve the same result. Keeping them separate is the simplest, most straightforward solution.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds like you're content to keep things the way they are, so I'll keep this brief, but just wanted to clarify a couple of things in case it gives you food for thought. 'Skip to top' also works without parameters, and in the counterproposal, users of {{astro back to top}} converted to a wrapper would continue to use it without parameters, and see the same result as before, as in that case the wrapper itself would provide any needed parameters internally. Technically, this is definitely doable, but as you say, the functionality is different enough that maybe it's not desirable. Thanks for raising this. Mathglot (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tom, I can see that it's a lot of typing to type the whole template name each time, and maybe that was part of the motivation? In any case, I've added a couple of shortcuts for you. View or refresh the template doc page and you'll see them appear upper right. If they are not welcome, then just revert the last change to the /doc page. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automotive strategy consultant[edit]

The subject of this redirect seems to not be mentioned or identified in the target article. Readers looking up this redirect will seemingly not find the information they may be looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omission of Taiwan from maps of China[edit]

Topic not discussed in target. Was originally an article before being redirected. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Revert as a contested WP:BLAR. Although it was theoretically discussed, one editor (93) proposed a merge and then actioned it two days later without any other editor commenting. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree that this should be reverted. --GnocchiFan (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revert: per Thryduulf. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revert Comment As the person who apparently moved it 5 years ago, I agree it was not the correct choice to redirect without mentioning it specifically; I must have assumed it was already covered given that the article was only 2 sentences on a footnote in the general controversy. 93 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC) edited to change to Comment 23:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do not revert, the article in question was one sentence, "Taiwan (Republic of China) was classified as a province of the People's Republic of China in Apple Maps.", cited to a single Telegraph (UK) article. If there is a case for a specific article on this topic, it should be developed anew. CMD (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, and that sentence had nothing to to with the omission of Taiwan from a map of China, if anything, it was a case of including Taiwan as part of the PRC on a map, so it would still be misleading. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those are arguments for AfD not against reversion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a discussion of what to do with the redirect, which could be deleted here as some redirects are. The alternative proposed of converting the redirect into a one-sentence article that is off-topic from the redirect title would be less helpful to readers than the current redirect target. CMD (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support the merge that was done, hence do not revert. However, the title of page mismatched the pre-merge contents, hence continues to be a misleading redirect to the current target. Retarget to Taiwan, China#People's Republic of China which has content about excluding Taiwan from the map of China. Jay 💬 07:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a stronger consensus. Retarget to Taiwan, China, or revert BLAR and restore original stub?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trinidad, Colombia[edit]

A rather odd entry at Barranquilla (disambiguation) reads: "Trinidad, Colombia, Guaviare Department, Colombia" but the redirect targets (and has since 2008) Barranquilla in Atlántico Department. I can't find a mention of any Trinidad in Columbia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete as useless and wrong (points to a place in a different country), and without an alternative target. There are no less that eleven places named "Trinidad" in Colombia of which only Trinidad, Casanare has an article. The one in Guaviare Department must be a small place - see here - but it is south of a, perhaps a bit larger, Barranquilla (there are only five of those in Colombia). Davidships (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monument station (Massachusetts)[edit]

There is no mention of a Monument station at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ronald Dale Karr's The Rail Lines of Southern New England lists Monument as an alternative name for the Bourne station on page 409. That seems like a decent rationale for the redirect existing, but the book does not elaborate further on the name. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: I've added a mention to the article, including a cited date for the name change. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monument station (MBTA)[edit]

There is no mention of a Monument station at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete for lack of apparent mention anywhere. A couple of unreliable (user generated) sources indicate that the station was located at Monument Square in Jamaica Plain, but it it isn't mentioned there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discuss as a group. This redirect was the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bynner Street station, and all of those redirects should be discussed together. It was an odd situation where the stop names only ever appeared on a single map showing a planned restoration of service (which never happened), and it's unclear whether the same stops were used when the service previously ran. It's tricky because the map is still floating around, making these plausible search terms, but they're unlikely to appear in the article. I'm ambivalent whether the redirects are kept or deleted, but it should be consistent for all of them. If the decision is delete, note also that most of the redirects have several variants that can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Green Line E branch. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fire must never be extinguished[edit]

Weirdly specific and clunky redirect, the text doesn't show up in the target article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep as harmless and unambiguous. This will help someone who can't remember the name of the article to find it either directly or by search engines finding when asked for similar search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This appears to be a clunkier version of Fire ever burning created by the same user, but this phrasing as a strangely constructed sentence makes this title unnatural and seemingly impossible to intentionally search for, much less an expectation to end up at this article. Its existence as a command to "never let [the fire] be extinguished" makes little to no sense (due to no parts of the text making mention of this title anything close to verbatim). It's not an equivalent phrase to the target by any means, in my eyes. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Weird but harmless. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not harmless. I came across this from someone wrongly linking it in an entirely irrelevant context, if you really think this is a valid redirect I'm not really sure what to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auslit[edit]

Given the existence of AustLit, and "Auslit" not appearing in the target article, I'm not sure this is properly targeted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "Auslit" is a widely used diminutive or nickname for the whole genre of "Australian literature". Maybe the "Australian literaure" page just needs a note to that effect. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's now a useful hatnote Doug butler (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per above, now the hatnote exists anyone arriving here looking for the other topic will find their way very easily. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khovanski[edit]

I suppose Khovansky (surname) would be a more appropriate target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget per nom, as the proposed location has more possible results for just a name as the title. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HD 110082 c[edit]

Delete. This was created as a typo of HD 110067 c; HD 110082 is a different star and has no known planet "c". SevenSpheres (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tennodontosaurus (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Delete: Pages moved to correct spelling, what links here pages corrected, unused, implausible typo. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of most massive exoplanets[edit]

If this is to be a redirect, List of brown dwarfs would be a more appropriate target. See Talk:List of most massive exoplanets#Merge it with a different page instead. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also List of least massive stars is a redirect to List of brown dwarfs too. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep brown dwarfs aren't usually considered to be planets, Brown dwarf#Current IAU standard gives a definition which means the two categories are mutually exclusive. Hut 8.5 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Most of the objects that were in the list had masses in the brown dwarf region. Some planets like CT Cha b and GQ Lup b were in both lists. Also, List of least massive star is also a redirect to that page yet BDs aren't stars either. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What was in the article before it was redirected doesn't have any bearing on where the redirect should go. There are objects in the lists which might be either large exoplanets or small brown dwarfs, but that's not a good reason to send a reader who clearly wants a list of exoplanets to a list which isn't supposed to have any planets in it. Hut 8.5 12:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Most of massive planets are similar in size to Jupiter. HR 2562 b is for example only 11% larger. The list of largest exoplanets covers the largest exoplanets which are much larger than Jupiter. Also, List of least massive stars is a redirect to List of brown dwarfs and yet the list it redirects to isn't even supposed to have stars. Redirecting the list of most massive exoplanets to the list of largest exoplanets makes no sense. Mass is not size. List of most massive stars and List of largest known stars are completely different lists. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, mass and size aren't the same thing, but that's not an obstacle to having a redirect. A reader who types in "List of most massive exoplanets" is looking for a list of big exoplanets, which is what the current target delivers. I certainly don't see how that reader is any better served by being sent to a list of things which are by definition not planets. What some completely different search term redirects to is not relevant here. Hut 8.5 18:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But List of least massive stars isn't a redirect to List of smallest stars but to List of brown dwarfs. But that list is not supposed to have any actual stars. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Hut 8.5. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense, makes absolutely no sense how this list should be redirected to the List of largest exoplanets. Models such as mass-radius relationships show the gravity of planets (including solid ones and brown dwarfs) with masses more than 500 - 1,000 MEarth would cause them to shrink due to electron degeneracy pressure (see degenerate matter), thus leading to rather smaller radii (and much higher gravity and density) comparing to their lighter counterparts (or larger for hotter gas giants depending on the temperature per "runaway inflation", see Puffy planet).[1] Hard to believe why this page should be a redirect to List of largest exoplanets, it sounds an absurd decision.
Redirect to List of brown dwarfs more or less may be no any better either (though still a better choice than to List of largest exoplanets page): it is overall very difficult to differ a very massive super-jovian planet (gas giant) from a brown dwarf (and a sub-brown dwarf) and there is still no universal proper consensus yet (as stated in the Brown dwarf page), though some studies considered brown dwarfs as simply "high-mass jovian planets".[2] According to some planet definitions, whether an object is a planet or brown dwarf depends on either how it formed or a mass cutoff, in which the IAU uses the deuterium-buring mass limit of 13 MJ (though it slightly varies depending on metallicity), while some other studies and data favored larger mass cutoffs (e.g. 60 MJ),[2][3] and disregarded the 13 MJ limit to be irrelevant.[4] There's no much way what should be considered the most massive exoplanets anyway, and whenever if brown dwarfs are just "super planets" is still not universally accepted for now. The list is also still too hopeless (or not) to keep it as well, useless you wanna remake it as List of most massive substellar objects, kind of a good idea (or not). At this point, it's probably best to delete this page for good, useless if there's an appropriate target (except for the two mentionned said lists). Regards—ZaperaWiki44(✉/Contribs) 07:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That might be true, but remember we are a non-specialist encyclopaedia and we need to cater for people who have no idea about all those technical definitions. Someone using this search term wants a list of things that are very large exoplanets, which is exactly what the current target is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Seager, S.; Kuchner, M.; Hier‐Majumder, C. A.; Militzer, B. (2007). "Mass‐Radius Relationships for Solid Exoplanets". The Astrophysical Journal. 669 (2): 1279–1297. arXiv:0707.2895. Bibcode:2007ApJ...669.1279S. doi:10.1086/521346. S2CID 8369390.
  2. ^ a b Hatzes, Artie P.; Rauer, Heike (2015). "A Definition for Giant Planets Based on the Mass-Density Relationship". The Astrophysical Journal. 810 (2): L25. arXiv:1506.05097. Bibcode:2015ApJ...810L..25H. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L25. S2CID 119111221.
  3. ^ Bodenheimer, Peter; D'Angelo, Gennaro; Lissauer, Jack J.; Fortney, Jonathan J.; Saumon, Didier (2013). "Deuterium Burning in Massive Giant Planets and Low-mass Brown Dwarfs Formed by Core-nucleated Accretion". The Astrophysical Journal. 770 (2): 120 (13 pp.). arXiv:1305.0980. Bibcode:2013ApJ...770..120B. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/120. S2CID 118553341.
  4. ^ Schneider, Jean (July 2016). "Exoplanets versus brown dwarfs: the CoRoT view and the future". The CoRoT Legacy Book. p. 157. arXiv:1604.00917. doi:10.1051/978-2-7598-1876-1.c038. ISBN 978-2-7598-1876-1. S2CID 118434022.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Earl on the Beat[edit]

This article under the name/moniker of a music producer currently redirects to an album he participated on. However, his name is mentioned in several other articles such as Paint the Town Red (Doja Cat song), When I Was Dead or Hot Girl Summer. Hence, he is not uniquely associated with the target article. Since there is no alternative target article nor any content to warrant an article, the redirect should be deleted. Str1977 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snowbunny[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Would suggest retargeting this to the disambiguation page Snow bunny. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment: The current target, proposed target, and redirect creator have been notified of this discussion. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 12:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. The disambig includes an entry "a groupie in skiiing" which could be broadened if the term is used in relation to e.g. snowboarding too. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Antivivisection[edit]

IMHO suboptimal linking. Hildeoc (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Airbus Group[edit]

Retarget to Airbus Group, Inc. per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I did this manually, but was immediately reverted because "The parent company was known as Airbus Group from 2014–2017". But a name that was used by the broader organization for only three years is clearly not the primary meaning, when the operation by this name has been spun off into a specific subsidary. While I added a long-missing {{Redirect|Airbus Group|...}} hatnote at Airbus that points to Airbus Group, Inc., this is still unnecessarily confusing for readers. The redirect should obviously go to the company that currently has this name, and the fact that it briefly formerly referred to the parent company should be dealt with using a hatnote at that article. Really, the article presently at Airbus Group, Inc. should probably be at Airbus Group as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that can be dealt with later by WP:RM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2[edit]

Jennifer Little (lawyer)[edit]

A redirect for a lawyer who is only referred to once, offhandedly within a quote inside the References section. Without any further context beyond this, this redirect is unhelpful at best and harmful towards reader experience at worst. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is no content about this person, and (relevant to the undisambiguated title I've added to this discssussion) there are also passing mentions of an author and an actress (the latter was determined to be non-notable in 2010). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I can't see how the redirect can be "unhelpful" – "at best"! – as there actually was a laywer by that name involved in that particular case, but never mind. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The presence of the redirect implies that we have content relevant to the search term at the target, but we don't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marissa Goldberg[edit]

A redirect for the name of a lawyer not mentioned at the target article. Without context or any information present at the target page, this redirect is harmful and leaves readers stranded without information on who this person is. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I cannot find that we have any information about a person by this name anywhere on the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephen Weiss (lawyer)[edit]

A redirect for a lawyer that is not mentioned at the target article. Neither Stephen (the lawyer) nor Susan have any encyclopedic content written on Wikipedia, and in this absence I believe that a redirect is not appropriate due to a lack of context at the target page for this title. Better to have as a red link to encourage article creation, if notable. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We have no content about any lawyer by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Susan Necheles[edit]

Nobody named Susan or Necheles at the target page, much less Susan Necheles. Looking into this case this person seems to be a lawyer for Donald Trump during this prosecution, but as it stands this redirect is wholly unwarranted for a living person to an article where they aren't even the least-bit mentioned by name. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom, we have no content about anybody by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PARAMIL[edit]

The target page makes no mention of an abbreviated form called "Paramil", much less that same form (or any form for that matter) stylized in all caps; "PARAMIL", "PARAMILITARY" or otherwise. I could very well be missing context however, but based on this and google searching the phrase, I'm coming up blank. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • weak retarget. While some of the google hits are related to paramilitary (or just military) activities, it's equally likely to refer to other non-notable things. However the only mention on Wikipedia is at Glossary of military abbreviations#P, linking to paramilitary, where it, along with all other entries, is stylised in all-caps. Retargetting there will explain the term and provide a link to those who want that use, while we can't help anyone who wants something different, so that's my weak preference. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MoS:dab[edit]

The funkiness of this incorrectly-spelled pseudospace (MoS) aside, this title is a different enigma. Out of the MoS redirects, this is the only one starting with "MoS" that has a lowercase title succeeding the prefix. [5] It has no incoming links, and next to zero practical use because of the capital S and lowercase rest-of-title; this selective and uncommon capitalization is never present in any other PNR of this type.

In terms of alternatives, Mos:dab is by and large the more convenient "lazy-option", which does exist and gets 43 monthly pageviews. The use case for the full-lowercase is certainly there, and I do appreciate the ability to quickly type that shortcut (even if it would still work with just MOS:DAB, but that's a diff topic). Whereas, the 2 monthly pageviews for MoS:dab I believe have both been me gawking at its poor format. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete, same as all the previous cases of this sort using "Mos:" or "MoS:". The "MOS:" pseudo-namespace exists by consensus (so that shortcuts to MOS sections stop using up all available mnemonic/memorable/sensible shortcut names), but there is absolutely no consensus to create near-duplicate "Mos:" and "MoS:" pseudo-namespaces. All these things live in mainspace and we should have no more of them than we actually need. This is one of the cases in which redirects are not "cheap".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Top 30 PBR bull riders of all time[edit]

No list of top 30 bull riders of all time. This page does not (and likely won't ever) have incoming links, and seems safe to delete. The page it was previously pointing at, PBR Top 30 by way of page movement, has since been converted to a redirect by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBR Top 30. However, just because that title had the chance to become a redirect, does not mean this all-time-title is also deserving of one. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: As a disclaimer, I was the nominator in the linked AfD. I don't think that this makes sense as a redirect to continue to existing. It made sense when PBR Top 30 was its own article and this targetted that, but as Professional Bull Riders currently has no content on the PBR Top 30, this redirect can be safely deleted. If content is added related to that to the PBR page, then this can be recreated as a {{A2r}} of PBR Top 30. TartarTorte 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time in office[edit]

This very vague phrase could refer to any of a number of topics; some are included in Category:Lists of people by time in office, but neither anything in that category or any other article strikes me as a better target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. This is far too general a title to point to any single article and could refer to far too many things to make a manageable disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete – Too vague a term for redirecting to any one article, and too general for a disambiguation page. Drdpw (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silkmoth redirects[edit]

Redirects that should have a consistent target. Looking up the term, I find that there are generally 3 ways that it's used:

  • A general name for all moths that produce silk in their larval stage. This includes many Saturniidae, Bombycidae, and Apatelodidae moths.
  • As a name for the Bombycidae family, in contrast to other silk-producing moth families.
  • As a name for the Bombyx mori species in particular.

The first one seems to be the primary usage of the term, however I didn't find any articles that would make a good target for this. Perhaps a stub WP:BCA page could be created, but would it fit for the redirects to target it and not, for example, Bombyx mori? Randi🦋TalkContribs 09:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • write a broad concept article and target the redirects there as the general concept does seem to be primary and such will be most helpful to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a layman (i.e., in this context, a non-biologist), I would expect the term "silk moth" or "silkmoth" to refer to the adult stage of the silkworm, i.e., either the Bombyx mori, or the same together with its wild counterpart (Bombyx mandarina). Other moth species or sets of species whose larvae produce silk cocoons could be worth a disambiguation page or a general article pointed to by (or having as title) the plural form of the expression. — Tonymec (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. IIUC, the Saturniidae do not include the domestic silk moth, which means that I would not be interested in finding them by searching for "silk moths"; OTOH, still IIUC, the clade issuing from their common ancestor with the domestic silk moth, the Bombycoidea, includes the sphinx moths, which produce no silk. As a first try, I propose the following retargets:
  • Silk moths → replace by a disambiguation page (not Silkworm (disambiguation) which is not about moths) or by a general article about all silk-producing caterpillars
  • Silkmoth → Bombyx or Bombyx mori (I hesitate) with a banner at top mentioning the other article
  • Silk moth → same as Silkmoth
Tonymec (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bombycoidea excluded Sphingidae until recently, and for most of post-1800 history they were in their own superfamily, Sphingoidea. In that sense, up until recently, the term "silk moths" did generally refer to all members of Bombycoidea, and ideally should have redirected there. Saturniidae are "giant silk moths", Apatelodidae are "American silk moths", and so forth, so "silk moths" is a catch-all for these families. Here is my suggestion: make "Silk moth" a disambiguation article, and have "Silk moths" and "Silkmoth" point to it. In the disambiguation article, the top entry should be Bombycoidea, as it was historically considered to be the silk moth clade (and SAY that it is understood in this historical usage); even most entomologists aren't aware that sphingids are now placed there, so this is still the most common and conventional use of the term. Then, list all the families with "silk moth" in their common names, and then list Bombyx mori and Bombyx mandarina. Yes, it's inconvenient to be routed through a disambiguation page instead of a simple redirect, but this is a moderately complicated tangle of names, and it's a good example of why we have disambiguation articles in the first place. Dyanega (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the three targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Sync the redirects ... but to which target is a mystery to me. Either way, a vote to "write a broad concept article" only works if the person who suggested it writes the article themselves, considering such a vote almost sounds like rationale to delete per WP:REDLINK, but it seems at least one of the three targets may be appropriate for retargeting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I originally planned to write a draft, but ran into trouble finding sources that focus specifically on the broad term "silk moth" rather than using it as a shorthand to a family or a species. My mistake, I should've perhaps tried to create it before starting the RfD. A disambiguation between the usages as suggested by Dyanega doesn't inherently need sources, and the name "silk moth" is mentioned in the target pages (though Bombycidae currently has the synonymous "silkworm moths" instead). Randi🦋TalkContribs 17:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dyanega's proposal above (indented under mine) looks good to me. (I would expect Bombyx mori and Bombyx mandarina near the top rather than near the bottom but that is secondary.) The only new article it requires is a disambiguation page, and then the three redirects under discussion would be made to point there. — Tonymec (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — retarget, disambiguate, or create article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be no consensus so far, so I propose a solution for the closer: (temporarily) disambiguate and tag with {{Broad-concept article}} so WikiProject Disambiguation knows not to change any incoming links to bypass the page. Hopefully this is a good enough solution until someone comes along who can write the article, because leaving the redirects pointing at different articles as they are now is undoubtedly a poor decision. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disambiguate and tag per TechnoSquirrel69. Obviously these should point at the same target and ideally there should be an article, but until that happens, the second best option is to have a DAB page to different species/taxonomic groupings referred to as "silk moth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patar knight (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Silk. I'm usually very wary of specific-to-general redirects, but there's still useful discussion about moths throughout that article. While "write an article" is always a noble sentiment, it's usually not a workable outcome unless someone just steps up and does it. Pointing to Silk seems like the best option for now. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for newly aired suggestion of Silk. Consensus agrees there should be a unified target, but no agreed target has been solidly identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 18:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draba cana[edit]

The target, Draba breweri is not the same plant as Draba cana. Plants of the World Online, World Flora Online, and NatureServe all list Draba cana as a separate species. It should probably be a redlink until someone has the time to create the page for the species to prevent confusion.

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:83473-2 https://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000655100 https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.154105/Draba_cana 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upper Valachia of Moscopole and Metsovon[edit]

This is just a made-up thing. It's not mentioned in the target article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

⦇[edit]

Not mentioned at target; Catamorphism could be a potential alternative seeing Bananas (catamorphism) or wikt:banana bracket. In the previous discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#⦈, where no consensus was achieved, I had also proposed Bracket#Encoding as an option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moscopolea[edit]

Moscopole is a village in Albania. It is known as Moscopole in Aromanian, a Romance language related to Romanian. "Moscopolea" is not an alternate name of the city. -a is the definite articulation particle, it's basically the same as saying "the Moscopole", cities in English-speaking countries like New York can also be added this particle in Aromanian but it might be hard to understand for English-speakers. Anyway, we don't need this redirect. An Aromanian-speaker would look up the base name of the village, if their intention is getting to the article. For more information look up Moscopole's Wiktionary entry [6]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T:centralised discussion[edit]

In addition to T:binggrae which is nominated below, this is the only other T: PNR that breaks convention and spells out the template's name verbatim in lowercase. At that point, the shortcut does not have much use as a cross-namespace redirect if it's just going to be the whole title anyway. The only other times a template is spelled at is for "Today's Featured Article" and "Picture of the Day", which at least are constructed properly (but none of these spelled-out PNR titles get many views to begin with). Utopes (talk / cont) 17:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T:binggrae[edit]

Unnecessary recently created PNR to a navbox with 2 links. Would not benefit from a T: namespace redirect, which are heavily limited in use. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Train leaving on track five for Anaheim, Azusa and Cu-camonga![edit]

This quote's exact format is nowhere to be found in the article, although the spirit is, somewhat. The article contains mention of a "Cuc-amonga", but no "Cu-camonga". Google hits don't even USE a hyphenated word to begin with in that slot. While both may be different manners of accounting for a held U-sound, in my eyes it's not helpful and unlikely to be searched. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now for something completely different (quote)[edit]

An unhelpful redirect, as And Now For Something Completely Different also contains this quote. I'm not convinced that pointing this at the other media would make this better, as it seems to be a WP:XY situation due to both works heavily leaning on this phrase. One said it first, the other was fully built around it.

The quote itself is a likely search term in reference to the spin-off which is mentioned at both places (although more so at the spin-off). The un-useful part comes from the "(quote)" clarifier, which is as confusing in this situation as a hypothetical "(sentence)" clarifier because it doesn't distinguish anything. I'd recommend deletion due to no clear target. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Say the secret word and ...[edit]

Comedy catchphrase not fully mentioned at the target article. While "say the secret word" is present in the article, it is never followed by "and", nor an ill-formatted ellipsis at the end (with a space between it and "and"). The second half follow-up that is alluded to in the title never comes up anywhere. It doesn't lend itself well as a search term due to the strange format, and has thusly never received an incoming link. Say the secret word would be a more suitable search term IF this quote were to be ever linked at, but that does not exist either. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, here's something we hope you really like![edit]

Redirect for a comedy catchphrase not mentioned at the target article. The quote itself aside, I feel this title would be completely strange to see as a reader on Wikipedia. If I didn't already know better, I would ask "Wikipedia is giving me an article that [Wikipedia] really hopes I would like? Who decided that?". I can't imagine it would be very useful for people searching this to end up at this page without any context whatsoever, even if it makes sense to fans of the show who are familiar with this quote. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody fucks with the Jesus[edit]

A comedy catchphrase that isn't listed at the target article. As a standalone phrase, this phrase is already pretty vague out of context, and the current location without a mention does not do it any favors. Would be unclear why this redirect points here to an uninitiated reader. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CAT:SURNAMES[edit]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. (While the target category gets a lot more pageviews than the others nominated here, as nearly everyone has a surname, the PNR does not appear to be a necessity for this otherwise-ordinary category). Utopes (talk / cont) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CAT:SLOVAKIA[edit]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CAT:CROATIA[edit]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CAT:BOTSWANA[edit]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CAT:TIGRINYA[edit]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CAT:XHOSA[edit]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Home (Basshunter lyric video)[edit]

Redundant redirect from an implausible search term. With extremely rare exceptions on the order of "Thriller", a music video would virtually never qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the song that it's the music video for, and lyric videos (which absolutely anybody can make and post to YouTube at any time whether it's "official" or not) have an even weaker prospect of independent notability than narrative videos do -- and since Home (Basshunter song) already exists as an article about the song, there's no compelling reason why it would need a separate redirect from a differently-disambiguated title representing its own lyric video. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The target article mentions the existence of a related "lyric video" in the top section, but I'm uncertain if its passing mention is enough to validate any utility this nominated redirect has. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Spider-Man media by release date[edit]

No such list appears to exist at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 1[edit]

Current Political Issues of the United States[edit]

The target does not include a list of current political issues. If there is a such a list elsewhere that I've not found then these should be retargetted there. The first redirect does contain a list (dating from 2007) in the history which could be reverted to if there isn't anywhere to retarget and there hasn't been a consensus against such a list. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete all per nom, and since the first two redirects will require constant maintenance whenever their target needs to change, and the last redirect is a WP:REDLINK situation. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, the first two would not need maintenance if the target was an article or section about current political issues in the United States, e.g. Politics of Spain#Key political issues exists but I've not found a US equivalent. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny jokes[edit]

Unplausible search term. While it may look like it was expanded to an article in 2008 with a string of edits, the article was actually an unencyclopedic joke repository ("Welcome to the Funny Jokes page on Wikipedia. There are blond jokes, kids jokes, yo mama jokes, and many others here. Feel free to submit your own jokes by editing a category and signing it."), so there's no history to keep. QuietCicada - Talk 21:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dodicurus era[edit]

Nominated for PROD but that can't be used on redirects. PROD rationale seemed correct, original nominator's statement was I have no idea why this exists; never heard of a "Dodicurus era" and Doedicurus wasn't even from the Mesozoic Tollens (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy ping: Zach Varmitech Tollens (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dodicurus is a perfectly plausible (and not uncommon) misspelling of Doedicurus, but that is a genus of animals not an era. The only uses I can find of "Dodicurus era" are this redirect and an entry on pronouncewiki which scrapes en.wp page titles. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DeconstructionIsm[edit]

Implausible typo (note the capitalized I) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep as a {{R with old history}} and {{R from CamelCase}} (with which I've tagged it). The first entry in the page history is by Conversion script indicating that this dates from the CamelCase era of Wikipedia and was the original location of the article now at Deconstruction (it was created at this title in January/April 2021, moved to Deconstructionism in February 2002 and then to Deconstruction in July 2003). Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not CamelCase. Deconstructionism isn't two separate words. That would only work if a valid alternate title of Deconstruction ism was. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a CamelCase redirect within the meaning used in the very earliest days of Wikipedia. Links were required to have two non-consecutive capital letters, so page titles needed to as well (otherwise they couldn't be linked to). All such titles were called CamelCase, regardless of whether they were a single or multiple words, see Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia and other examples such as AlchemY and AmericA. The usual convention was to capitalise the first and last letters of single word titles, why this was different I don't know, but it is. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm… a question would be if anything links to that then. Also, does MediaWiki software auto redirect capitalization? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The "links" link in the header shows links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia, but does not (and cannot) show links from old revisions, other projects, the wider internet, bookmarks, offline resources, etc.
    MediaWiki will autocapitalise the first letter of a page title, and it will adjust capitalisation of other letters to match extant titles in some circumstances but not all. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf (and per WP:R#K4). Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 19:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep While the redirect is indeed useless, it should still be kept because it's from the earliest days of Wikipedia, 2002. Such old history shouldn't just be erased. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Man Sudo[edit]

Two potential targets: 1. Man page <- current, but no content on sudo 2. sudo <-no man page info This combined redirect is currently useless, and likely gets in the way of a reader. Better off deleting. Widefox; talk 21:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing[edit]

This wasn't a bombing but a car accident. This redirect should be removed as it is misleading. There was no bomb or bombing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete According to the article the facts are leaning to this being a case of reckless driving and also cites an New York Times article stating they so far no explosive devices have been found. I will reconsider if new facts come to light.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete this was someone being too hasty in assuming the worst when creating the article. Nthep (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as unsupported. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as a common misnomer - the term that was used in multiple sources before the facts were clear and it's very likely that people will misremember an explosion as a bombing. The article will educate people that there was not a bomb. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: Perfectly plausible per Thryduulf. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 05:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note AfD. J947 ‡ edits 00:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. Totally an erroneous description of the event, but might reasonably be searched, and it would be good to link to the article on what actually happened. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: per Red-tailed hawk. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. While I appreciate the redirect-from-incorrect-name, now with the benefit of hindsight, the rush to call it a "bombing" was a short-term aberration. I see little reason to believe this will be a lasting plausible search term for this event. Especially since entering "2023 Rainbow Bridge" in the search area, if autocomplete will added, will already highlight the correct entry. Therefore it is merely misleading and unhelpful. Martinp (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Autocomplete is only available for a few of the many ways people use to find Wikipedia content. While it might have been an "aberration" to call it a bombing, it's far from implausible that people will misremember it as such. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not trying to snark, genuinely seeking to be informed: Of those other ways, in which ones will someone plausibly fall onto the specific combination "2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing" in particular (and in that order), as more likely than "...explosion" or the equally incorrect "...terrorist attack"? And as opposed to confusedly searching and eventually ending up in our "Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls)" article, which is a pretty good place to get educated? It just seems strange that of many different potential descriptors for this unfortunate event, we're proposing to keep around one blatantly (in retrospect) incorrect one, which seems equally semi-plausible as a confused search term as other more and less correct ones. Martinp (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Romani people in Central Asia[edit]

This is a recently created redirect, and reading the target article it does not seem appropriate. The target article includes "Russian Roma emphasize that the Lyuli are distinct from them and not part of the Romani society and culture", "confused with European Romani". It quotes a source as saying "Uzbeks refer to them, often with contempt, as Lyuli or Gypsies, though there is scant genetic evidence linking them to the world's Roma diaspora". There is a possible link referred to regarding Turkish Roma, but the abstract of the source cited suggests that "gypsy" was used for groups that were not Roma as well, which seems in line with the article text and quoted source. CMD (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biden recession[edit]

I am compelled to re-emphasize that neither the 2022 stock market decline, to which this redirect previously pointed, nor the global inflation surge to which it now points, are actually indicative of a recession. I realize that many believe a stock market decline or an inflation surge means there is a recession, but they mistaken, as the de facto official arbiter NBER has never declared there has been or is a recession. A Biden recession has never actually existed. Rather, there are some who have cheered for a Biden recession when none has actually existed, the data clearly show it, and I suggest Wikipedia is being gamed for political purposes with this redirect. The Biden recession is fiction and its redirect should be completely removed. soibangla (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Note the Redirect was not tagged until just now. I've also corrected the categorisation from {{R from ambiguous term}} to {{R from non-neutral term}}. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per the comments in the last discussion from IsadoraofIbiza the Biden recession is a cultural concept and campaign slogan. it is not a technical term, and there is no requirement that it satisfy a chosen metric, such as quarterly GDP growth. it is a real phenomenon related to Jerome Powell’s quantitative tightening efforts. and Hut 8.5 There has been some debate over whether there was a recession in the US in 2022, with some right-wing commentators and politicians arguing that there was. There is a paragraph in [Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#2022] discussing this.. I can see no evidence that anything has changed since this was last discussion, and this appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thryduulf if the Biden recession is a cultural concept and campaign slogan. it is not a technical term then it should not point to a technical article about the stock market or the inflation surge. rather, it should have its own article regarding a cultural concept and campaign slogan. economic illiteracy is rampant, with many people thinking, "oh my stocks are down, it's a recession!" or "oh my prices are up, it's a recession!" simply because one aspect of the economy is adverse, or even multiple aspects are, does not mean a recession. just because some right-wing commentators and politicians argu[ed] that there was a recession doesn't mean there ever was one and only buttresses the argument that Wikipedia is being gamed for political purposes with this redirect. a Biden recession is a myth fabricated for political purposes. this redirect is a disgrace to the integrity of this project. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't enter into this, I don't work that way, and I take personal offense to it soibangla (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IIRC (and there's always a chance I don't) a Biden recession article was quickly created after right-wing media sources (led by The Daily Wire followed promptly by a pile-on by others) wrote a bogus story about a Biden recession, and others (including Elon Musk) quickly alleged the recession article had been gamed by editors to cover it up for Biden. in reality, there is evidence someone gamed the article in advance to fabricate a hoax that the Daily Wire could run with.[7][8] what a clownshow that was. that Biden recession article then went to AfD and a decision was made to redirect. that decision should not have been made, rather the article should have been deleted outright. so now, after Wikipedia editors were falsely accused of rigging the article to protect Biden, the end result is that we have a redirect that perpetuates a falsehood that there was a Biden recession. that original error in creating a redirect rather than an outright deletion should now be rectified. soibangla (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One last thing: the fact the Biden recession redirect points anywhere is a subtle affirmation to users in wikivoice that a Biden recession has actually existed. It has not. If it is a cultural concept and campaign slogan, then maybe it should best point to an article leading with "The Biden recession was a 2022 political hoax ..." soibangla (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pinging the other participants from the previous discussion: @Jay, Pppery, JasonMacker, and InterstellarGamer12321:. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: Whether or not this was a recession is mentioned in target; no reason to delete. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 17:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was not really a voter at the previous RfD of a week back, but I would say procedural close per Thryduulf as a premature renomination because the time to provide arguments was over. DRV is the forum for this. Jay 💬 17:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jay Thryduulf I will say one last thing here, and then I will shut up and give up and go away: Wikipedia was gamed in a hoax.[9] I was very actively engaged in the matter literally before it burst into public view. I saw it coming, I was paying very close attention because this is what I do on such topics. I watched it unfold in real time. I knew what this was intended to do.[10] Because a false conservative media narrative went viral, someone reflexively created a "Biden recession" article that was soon found to be bogus. It went to AfD, but instead of deleting the article outright because it was a hoax, a decision was made to redirect it first to one irrelevant article, then to another. This should have never happened. Now, readers use the Wikipedia search box on "Biden recession" and lo and behold they see results, which they can reasonably construe means Wikipedia has affirmed there was a Biden recession that never actually happened. The bogosity of this entire matter cannot be overstated, and no one should need to go through any bureaucratic appeals process to correct this spectacular failure from the start. The redirect should be removed, and this has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rather, it has everything to do with Wikipedia being gamed from the getgo and a buncha trolls laughing until they wet themselves over how it all worked exactly as planned. That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please see WP:RNEUTRAL. Wikipedia has content that explains what the term means, who uses it and why, and how others disagree with it and why. In other words they learn about it, which is exactly the point of looking something up in an encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Raat.jpg[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn -FASTILY 10:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Testing123[edit]

This is a common phrase that people say into microphones to test if things are working all smoothly, so I don't see how this should redirect to the disambiguation page for Test. Similar titles like Testing 123 and Testing 1 2 3 have both been deleted as test pages with the former being salted. The only two "Testing123"s I know in mainstream media are a song from Barenaked Ladies' album and the My Little Pony episode from season 4 of the show. Retarget to possibly the former link, or delete this altogether? 1033Forest (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep Should be kept, "Testing 123" e.t.c. is a phrase often used. My Little Pony episodes are irrelevant. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: Any possible targets will be offered to the reader through search. Since other plausible targets exist, we shouldn't be assuming where the reader wants to go. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PvdA[edit]

Retarget to Labour Party (Netherlands) and For Aosta Valley, respectively, per WP:SMALLDIFFS. I considered just nominating PVDA for deletion because all the items are SMALLDIFFS with each other, however figured PvdA or PVdA could plausibly be referred to as PVDA, but not vice versa. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Retarget this are quirks that anyone using would be looking for a specific article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 30[edit]

Emotional damage[edit]

Unlikely other recently nominated "R from catchphrase" redirects, this phrase is mentioned. However, while this phrase was popularized by this YouTuber, there are multiple encyclopedic articles that discuss emotional damage, to the point where I think targeting this page instead of a page about damaged emotions would defeat the purpose of the joke being a joke in the first place. Wikipedia is not "Know Your Meme". Reduced affect display is one such alternative title, but there may be more suitable solutions. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South park/kenny[edit]

No reason for the slash to be in this title; none of the other characters have a subpage-esque redirect per Special:PrefixIndex, and not a likely search term for that reason. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment this redirect has existed since August 2005, which is a very long time but it does post-date the subpage era. It was created as an article (well a 1-line substub), but as it would qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A10 if reverted to there is no issue with deleting that content here if that is the consensus of the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Pretty basic housekeeping to delete stuff like this. Per nom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Top 20 motor vehicle producing companies[edit]

No such lists at target article. (However, Top 20 motor vehicle producing companies is a {{R with history}}, and Top 20 motor vehicle producing companies in 2007 is a former name of Top 20 motor vehicle producing companies prior to a page move.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of assets owned by major automobile corporations[edit]

Not sure what this title is meant to represent, specifically regarding "assets". Otherwise, this redirect was an article for a day in 2007, during which the article's creator WP:BLARed the article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Revert and rename. Based on the history, this seems to have been intended as a List of automobile manufacturers by parent company. As far as I can tell this is not content we have anywhere, but it seems like the sort of thing that would be potentially useful to have. As such I recommend reverting the BLAR and renaming the article to something more logical without prejudice to an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spider-Man: A New Universe[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. In addition, third-party search engine results do not seem to provide any references stating that this redirect is an alternative or former name of the target article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: As the author and only substantial contributor of the redirect, it can be deleted. It is an alternate title in a different language, though hardly searched for. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enter the spiderverse[edit]

Not an alternative name for the current target or Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. May be best to delete this redirect an an ambiguous erroneous title. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SEPDP[edit]

Similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#H2ODP, this is a neologism unique to wikipedia. This term generally means in the context of cloud computing "secure and efficient privacy preserving provable data possession scheme"; however, we don't seem to have anything that specifically mentions that topic on wikipedia. Distributed file system for cloud seems like it could potentially have mention of it added, but it doesn't currently have it mentioned. This should either be deleted, or if data is added to Distributed file system for cloud, retargetted there. TartarTorte 18:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on the discussion of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_3#H2ODP it should be either deleted or moved to the WP: namespace as WP:SEPDP. JGHFunRun (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or retarget - Sorry, I missed the part about retargetting. JGHFunRun (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brownlash[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. I've never heard of "brownlash" before in the context of climate change. Pinging User:Steveprutz who created that redirect 10 years ago. EMsmile (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I can't find the reference to this term in my quick searching. StevePrutz (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. This is, sort of, an actual term - [11][12][13][14] coined by Ehrlich & Ehrlich in this book. A better local target would be anti-environmentalism, as that's basically its meaning, but the term isn't used there either. I'd suggest soft redirect to Wiktionary but there isn't an entry there and durably archived uses independent of the Ehrlich's book are hard to find so I'm uncertain if it meets the inclusion criteria there. If it doesn't then deletion is really the only viable option. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That book is notable, if someone wants to make a page for it (at which point it'd make sense as a target). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that an article about the book would make a good target for this redirect, if the term is mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spider-Man (2018)[edit]

Ambiguous, other Spider-Man media released in 2018 like film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse Indagate (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Phan The Anh (Travel Blogger)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted by Liz under criteria G6.

Khulia Keng[edit]

Made-up spelling of the mountain peak. External search results are only from Wikipedia or mirrors thereof. Delete similar to the other redirect with the same spelling that was recently deleted at RfD. Jay 💬 05:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsung Prophents and Dead Messiahs[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7.

List of Mississippi's congressional districts by HDI[edit]

There is no Human Development Index tabulation at the target. Included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alabama Congressional Districts by HDI, but was not deleted as it was not bundled properly. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Missouri's congressional districts by HDI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They fight, and bite. They fight, and bite, and fight. Fight, fight, fight. Bite, bite, bite. The Itchy & Scratchy Show![edit]

Unmentioned quote from this show. Excessive length and punctuation makes this a highly implausible search term and not worth maintaining. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hen-reeeeeeeeeeeee! Hen-ree Al-drich![edit]

While this catchphrase is technically referred to at the target page (the only one among the recent series of RfD nominations), this seems like a prime example of a quote that is not particularly in need of a redirect. In this case, the pattern of "exactly-13-Es followed by an exclamation mark, and hyphenations between each of the syllables in Henry Aldrich" is near impossible to replicate for anyone that isn't already familiar with the contents of the "The Aldrich Family" article already. Unless this is a canonical transliteration of what was being said in this phrase (13 Es and all), I suggest deletion. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ye-e-e-e-s?[edit]

Hyphenating between every single e seems completely implausible as a search term for this radio and television series, and is never done (in its entirety) at the target page. Popping this title into a search engine gives absolutely all sorts of results pertaining to ANYBODY that slowly asks the question of "yes?". Does not appear to be a helpful title or spelling. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you dóóóóó?[edit]

While this catchphrase is somewhat mentioned, there is next to zero reason for the extra unwarranted o's to be accented. This quote has no benefit as a redirect under any modification, but even then, the regular version of How do you dooooo doesn't even exist at that. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

San Joaquin River Estates, California[edit]

Another pointless redirect of what seems to just be a subdivision, which is never mentioned in the target article. Very unlikely search term and even if someone is searching for it, they won't find any information on the Madera County article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revert per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

River Road Estates, California[edit]

Unlikely search term, since this appears to just be a subdivision, and the target article does not mention River Road Estates at all. Should simply be deleted. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revert per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You idiot![edit]

For a page that only mentions the word "idiot" once (and never as "You idiot!" per title quote), this general insult does not seem best suited to be a redirect towards one instance where it is allegedly used in a show. I'd recommend deletion personally as I can't think of a universal target that would be worthwhile. Idiot is a possibility, but the exclamation point makes this lean on the more implausible side. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think the exclamation mark makes this more implausible than it would be without it, but I agree it's not a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you veddy much[edit]

Comedy catchphrase not mentioned at the target article. The inclusion of "veddy" in place of "very" is already a dubious and implausible spelling, and I can't imagine this way of typing would be someone's best thought in regards to searching for an article about Latka Gravas. When I saw this, I presumed it was just a way of saying "thank you very much" in an alternate dialect that didn't actually belong to anyone in particular. There is Thank You Very Much which is a disambiguation page, but I would recommend deletion as an impossible target to pin down. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search term. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak keep, definitely don't retarget. All the google hits for this exact phrase refer to the target character so if the redirect exists it should point at the current target. The question then is whether this is a notable catchphrase, and I'm on the fence about that - google results suggest it possibly is but the lack of mention in the article (which is not a reason on its own to delete) suggest otherwise. On balance I think it's more helpful to have this than search results, which won't help anyone searching for this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chuck, Chuck! It's Marvin! Your cousin, Marvin Berry! You know that new sound you were looking for? Well listen to THIS![edit]

Comedy catchphrase that isn't mentioned at the target article. Excessive length, multitudes of punctuation, and a fully capitalized "THIS" makes this title near impossible to replicate even if someone wanted to search for "Back to the Future" by typing this quote. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: I have a hard time believing anyone's using this phrase when searching Wikipedia. DonIago (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. Besides the good points made above, the name of this film/musical is well known and easy to remember. No one would search for it using this quote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible search term. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. This quote (nor any part of it that I can spot) is not included at q:Back to the Future so it's definitely not one of the most defining pieces of dialogue from the film. That said, I disagree with the nominator that the punctuation is relevant to its use as a search term - it's what someone would copy and paste. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.[edit]

R from catchphrase not mentioned at the target article. The excessive combination of punctuation makes this title near impossible to replicate for a regular user, and its function as an unmentioned catchphrase is already dubious to begin with. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Soft redirect. Once again the correct punctuation is not relevant (copy and paste is a thing) but as a catchprase that's not mentioned it's not useful as a redirect to the current target. It is included at q:The Big Lebowski though, so soft redirect to there has value. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Madera Country Club Estates, California[edit]

Pointless redirect; seems to just be a subdivision. Target article makes no mention of any "Madera Country Club Estates", making it misleading. Should simply delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revert per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore and send to AFD, I don't see a problem with deleting uncontested redirections at RFD but this one has been at AFD so should go there again if deletion is desired. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lake Madera Country Estates, California[edit]

Pointless redirect; this seems to just be a subdivision. Highly unlikely anyone would search for this place. Should simply delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]