Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25

July 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 25, 2020.

Lemmings (song)

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Lemming (disambiguation)#Music. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmings (song) → Blink-182 discography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The only mention of Lemmings on the target page is an EP Lemmings / Going Nowhere. Blink-182 have recorded a song by this name, which appears on that EP and on Dude Ranch (album) and is also mentioned at List of songs recorded by Blink-182. However this is not the only song called "Lemmings" so I propse to retarget this to Lemming (disambiguation)#Music where Blink-182 and Van der Graaf Generator songs are mentioned. Google doesn't suggest either is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk)

Retarget to Lemming (disambiguation)#Music per nom. There doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic, and plus any song called "Lemming" can also be mistakenly (and plausibly) called "Lemmings." Regards, SONIC678 04:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per both above. Narky Blert (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lemmings(album)

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmings(album) → Dude Ranch (album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. In addition to the missing space, the target album is not called "Lemmings" - This was redirected to Lemmings (song) and a bot fixed the resulting double redirect to this target (where it pointed at the time). Lemmings (album) redirects to Lemming (disambiguation) as there are two albums with this exact name and National Lampoon's Lemmings also gets called just "Lemmings". The current target is linked from the dab page because of the song. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the correct version is correctly targeted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Narky Blert (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the correctly formatted version exists. Regards, SONIC678 14:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Buklod

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buklod → Iglesia ni Cristo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Tagalog word for "unity" or "alliance", not mentioned at the target. An internet search does not suggest that Iglesia ni Cristo is the primary subject associated with this term. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An ambiguous foreign language term: may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Narky Blert (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete as vague at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Binhi

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Binhi → Iglesia ni Cristo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Binhi is the Tagalog word for seed. It also appears to be the name of a youth group affiliated with Iglesia ni Cristo, but it's not mentioned at the target and an internet search doesn't suggest that this is the primary meaning of this term. I would lean towards deletion unless a duly sourced mention is added, and even then it's not clear to me that this is the primary topic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete as vague at best. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Eleventh extinction

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh extinction → Holocene extinction (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of eleven or eleventh at the target. The lead itself calls it the sixth. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google finds only one use of this exact phrase that is independent of Wikipedia and not a collocation or nonsense [1]. That is on a page entitled "Conclusions: Extinction Events - Ten extinction events in deep time & perhaps we are now in the eleventh extinction event the anthropogenic extinction" hosed by the Senior University of Greater Atlanta, which is not an academic institution but a U3A-type informal learning group. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without a mention in the article this redirect is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL (probably a record for the length of time involved). Narky Blert (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this redirect is at the very least several hundred million years too early.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sotec eOne

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete as unopposed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sotec eOne → EMachines eOne (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Daewoo e-Power → EMachines eOne (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target. Searching online, I found some results (largely in Chinese and Japanese) for a very similar looking computer, but I can't find clear evidence that these are actually the same thing. In the case of Daewoo, I found this article that would seem to suggest that the e-Power is a copycat like the eOne, but that they are not the same product. I would suggest deletion unless such evidence can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Second Babylonian dynasty

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 22:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second Babylonian dynasty → Kassites (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

While the Kassites did come to power after the First Babylonian Dynasty, I can't find any evidence that they are referred to by this name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Neo-Babylonian Empire which is the new, or secon Babylonian dynasty. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Sealand Dynasty, which calls it the "2nd Dynasty of Babylon" in the lede. Narky Blert (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew this chronology was so complicated! In a Google search, I found a 1992 honors undergraduate paper labeling the Kassites thus, so I don't think there's any danger that we made this up. But here's an 1887 work from an Oxford academic, whose list of kings from the Second Dynasty is clearly from the time period that we consider the first. Google privileges a Britannica Kids entry saying the second dynasty arose in the 1100s BC, placing them after the Kassites. I don't like Sealand Dynasty despite its use of the term. The lede is full of... shall we say, scholarly weasel words (not policy-violating WP:WEASEL words, just reflecting academic uncertainty). But Neo-Babylonian Empire isn't a clear choice either, since second empire =/= second dynasty.

That leaves me wanting to target somewhere broad. List of Mesopotamian dynasties probably links to whatever the reader is looking for, but the organization leaves quite a lot to be desired (this again probably comes down to us just having to reconstruct these ancient societies as best we can). I think I'm just defaulting to delete and leaving it to search results. Note that the redirect is new, so it has minimal page views (but of course hasn't had much time to get them). --BDD (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BDD, whose informative post I found interesting and convincing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BDD. I agree entirely on List of Mesopotamian dynasties, I really think that could be a useful target, but it's one of the least informative list articles I've seen thanks to its complete lack of structure and annotation, so I actually think the search results are preferable to either (a) several questionable targets or (b) a highly non-navigable list. ~ mazca ^talk 13:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Subrata roy (author)

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus / retarget to Subrata Roy. It's fairly routine in these situations with a retarget/delete split for me to close this way, recognizing both that there's no consensus and also that a default "keep" with no action would please no one. This one was a bit more difficult since there was expressed opposition to the proposed retarget, instead of just two sides making their argument in parallel. But we are encouraged to pursue alternatives to deletion, so as a closer, I'm not comfortable with a delete outcome that isn't backed by clear consensus.

As in many cases, the deadlock can be broken by an article being written on another Subrata Roy better known as an author, if there's such a notable person. I think we can all agree that the scientist and the businessman have both authored works, but "author" is not the main word you'd use to describe either. While this is veering into personal opinion territory, an article on, say, a notable novelist could easily occupy Subrata Roy (author). --BDD (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subrata roy (author) → Subrata Roy (scientist) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

While scientists write papers, I'm not sure that the disambiguator (author) is really appropriate here. There's some other Subrata Roys with articles on Wikipedia, but none of them appear to be authors in the conventional sense. I would suggest deletion unless a justification or better solution can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Subrata Roy. All the hits for "Subrata Roy" author seem to be about the businessman whose article presently occupies the base title. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. There are no notable people named Subrata Roy who are known as authors. The miscapitalization makes this a slam dunk. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The facts disagree - the businessman is well known as an author based on all the google results about him that describe him as such. It's just his Wikipedia article considers it secondary to his notability as a businessman. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - When Wikipedia describes an author by that name, then a redirect should follow suit—not before. You have it backwards. It's puzzling that you allude to "facts" without evidence, but if you are so sure of his notability as an author, then you should have no issue citing that he is an author at his article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Already in the article, see Subrata Roy#Work philosophy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a much better answer. Stricken. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tavix's miscapitalization argument. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pandakekok9: Do you still stand by it now? Glades12 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - For clarity, I still stand by my miscapitalization argument. That's why I simply struck my delete suggestion instead of switching to retarget. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still stand by my delete !vote. I would have gone for keep if the last name is properly capitalized. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 09:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to the creation of Subrata Roy (author). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget koro to Subrata Roy per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Subrata Roy per above. Why should the capitalisation matter? This redirect isn't harming anyone and functions the same purpose through the Wikipedia search mechanism as Subrata Roy (author) would; it's pointless time-wasting bureaucracy to delete this redirect and create the other one. Redirects don't have to be perfect, they just have to be usable. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Subrata Roy as he does have a books section in his article. I've added a hatnote to the scientist. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far we've shown that "Subrata Roy (author)" can plausibly refer to Subrata Roy (businessman), Subrata Roy (scientist), and there is another writer named Subrata Roy who may be eligible for an article. Since the capitalisation is wrong here, I think we should delete the redirect, second choice disambiguate. I would strongly oppose retargetting the other Subrata Roy. Deryck C. 02:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Deryck's !vote above. Title is rather ambiguous and deletion would be more appropriate in this case. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of titles and honours of the British Crown

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#List of titles and honours of the British Crown

SpongeBob SquarePants: Bikini Bottom Nightmare

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants: Bikini Bottom Nightmare → SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Spongebob SquarePants: Bikini Bottom Nightmare → THQ (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Back on March 25, the "Spongebob Squarepants" counterpart was deleted, but I'm confused as to whether this was a real game (per this list that J947 provided over at the last discussion, which includes that name) or WP:MADEUP (per Lazlo25's rationalization for turning the former into a redirect on the grounds that it "[was] NOT a real game!"). As such, I'm suggesting we delete these two or retarget them wherever appropriate unless a justification can be provided as to why these redirect to their current targets. Regards, SONIC678 00:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete as it is costly, because it requires an admin to do so. I think I have seen most of SpongeBob episodes. Therefore, I think the "Bikini Bottom Nightmare" episode title is WP:MADEUP. Until they are proved to be MADEUP, I suggest retargeting both to SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
O, the nominator is talking about the game, not the episode. I have never played any games related to SpongeBob. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. This game does not exist and there was formerly a hoax article. Six Google results total, include one of the above redirects. IceWelder [✉] 13:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~I believe this is a chapter of a video game.~~ All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Retarget as working title of... whatever it was. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I suggest keeping the first one and redirecting to SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab. To me this seems like an appropriate solution. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both since the proposed retarget (matching both to SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab) doesn't have a mention, either. Nothing but an WP:ASTONISHing redirect, no matter what the target, it would seem. -2pou (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 2pou. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Thinking Cap

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to the soft redirect now at Thinking cap. Note that the other discussion regarding the uncapitalised version of this title was already closed with consensus to soft redirect to Wiktionary. I'm therefore treating the "soft redirect" consensus here, with most comments pre-dating that closure, as a consensus to just retarget this to that now-existing soft redirect page. There is not a compelling justification to have the two capitalisations of this point to different places, but the suggestion of moving the currently-targeted redirect to Thinking Cap (DC Comics) is potentially helpful, and will do that in addition to retargeting it at this title. ~ mazca ^talk 13:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking Cap → Thinker (DC Comics) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Note I've added Thinking Cap to this nomination as they should target the same place whatever happens. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've seperated them as discussed below. SpinningSpark 09:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The term Thinking Cap is mentioned at Thinker (DC Comics) and it is one of his most important creations. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While that may be true, it's just one example of a much wider term and not even close to the primary topic. In my search results for "thinking cap" -Wikipedia there was only one DC comics related result in the top 50 and that was 13th. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does show, though, that it was a bad idea to bundle the two together. They were created for different reasons and have different rationales for changing. SpinningSpark 22:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Separate them if you wish, but as the should both lead to the same target (whatever that is) and the same rationale applies to both (the current target is not the primary topic) I think bundling is correct here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - It clearly isn't correct to bundle if participants are voting keep on a rationale that applies to only one. It is your view that they should be treated the same, but the reality is not everyone is agreeing with you. SpinningSpark 09:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really approve of redirects and dab page entries for minor fictional items and characters, but it seems to be the consensus to have them, and as we don't have an article at the (uncapitalised) primary topic it makes sense to keep this as it is. SpinningSpark 09:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt:thinking cap. Given that this has been split, I'm reaffirming my opinion that readers will be best served by both capitalised and uncapitalised versions of this search term soft redirecting to Wiktionary in preference to only one of very many examples of thinking caps that will just confuse readers who are looking for either general information (most likely) or information on a different specific example from fiction or non-fiction. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per Thryduulf. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect as above. A capital C doesnt really make this less ambiguous and is likely to WP:SURPRISE anyone that doesnt care about comics. -2pou (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Move without leaving a redirect to Thinking Cap (DC Comics). @Kailash29792: you can always just create this dabbed redirect as well if you think this that big of an element. -2pou (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have an issue with the creation of Thinking Cap (DC Comics) (although the target doesn't convince me of the need), but I remain opposed to Thinking cap (now a soft redirect) and Thinking Cap leading to different pages and to the unqualified title being redirected to just one of very many specific uses. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pederasty in the Renaissance

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Pederasty which seems to be the strongest-supported option (although nothing was enthusiastic). While there isn't much to say about Pederasty in the Renaissance at that target, it has been argued that there is enough to support a redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty in the Renaissance → LGBT history#The Renaissance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Non-helpful redirect. The article covers general LGBT history during the period. This redirect gives the wrong ideas about what the section will be about and about what is considered LGBT. ★Trekker (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for attribution reasons. This is a redirect from a 2010 merge that is substantially what the current section is still based on. ~ mazca ^talk 21:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. The section is about LGBT, not pedophilia. If the page is kept at all (I don't see why honestly) the it should be redirected somewhere else, possiblhy the main pederasty article.★Trekker (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my comment below. Some of what he wrote about touched on normal gay history, even though that itself was distorted by him, but that small amount of overlap is enough to create a requirement of attribution. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Significant content was clearly removed from the poorly-sourced pederasty article and expressly merged, with modifications, to the current target. I agree that it's a poor title and a poor description of the content, and would agree with deleting it if not for this history, but this is generally how these things are attributed for copyright purposes. ~ mazca ^talk 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It contains non-trivial edit history. The article was created and largely written by Haiduc, who was banned by ArbCom in 2010 for reasons that are obvious based on the ANI discussion about him. The content he wrote was dishonest propaganda exaggerating the prevalence and social standing of practices that in today's world non-WP:Fringe sources call child sexual abuse, as explained here. (Part of this involved purposely combining relationships between grown males that really are gay history together with abusive relationships between a grown man and a young boy, and calling it all "pederasty".) This article was merged into LGBT history, with changes, shortly after his ban, and more changes probably occurred since then. We probably need it for copyright reasons, but it should definitely stay a redirect. If someone more knowledgeable than me informs me that we actually do not need it, then I'd say delete. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget per Trystan. I hadn't thought of that. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pederasty. Keeping the edit history for attribution purposes does not require keeping the current redirect target.--Trystan (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is actually a brief mention of child sexual abuse at the target section. In the section, it says that "The harshest punishments, such as burning at the stake, were usually reserved for crimes committed against the very young, or by violence." (emphasis mine). Not a very active user (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the below section, there's clear, serious harm here in conflating pederasty with LGBT practices. Retargeting is tempting, but Pederasty really doesn't discuss the topic in the Renaissance, only noting that the term entered English during that period. Moving this page without leaving a redirect is probably the best way forward. The deletion summary should link to this discussion, and the history will still be accessible without the harm of the status quo. It's just a matter of finding something that's an acceptable redirect to Pederasty that we don't already have—Paedication, maybe? --BDD (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems needlessly complicated. The Pederasty article states, The word first appeared in the English language during the Renaissance, as pæderastie (e.g. in Samuel Purchas' Pilgrimes), in the sense of sexual relations between men and boys. This seems like plenty to justify the target. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I noted that part of the article, but any reader using this search term would most likely be looking for the practice or idea of pederasty in the Renaissance, not the history of the word (cf. WP:UMD). It no more answers the search query than it would Pederasty in England (where Purchas was writing from). While the conflation of homosexuality and pederasty is by far the more pressing issue here, we still need to think about readers, what they look for, and how to accommodate them. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pederasty in the modern world

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

The result of the discussion was keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty in the modern world → Pederasty#Modern view (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect is mostly pointless, and the wording of it makes it seems like "Pederasty" is a term which is accepted in moder use as opposed to "child sexual abuse". The very short section it redirects to is only about modern views of historical use of the term. ★Trekker (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete if we can, but~~ it contains non-trivial edit history. The article was created and largely written by Haiduc, who was banned by ArbCom in 2010 for reasons that are obvious based on the ANI discussion about him. The content he wrote was dishonest propaganda exaggerating the prevalence and social standing of practices that in today's world non-WP:Fringe sources call child sexual abuse, as explained here, and which can be seen in this article as well. A merge with Pederasty was done in 2008. In 2019, though, the Pederasty article was itself completely rewritten. [2] So I'm not sure if we need this for copyright attribution or not, but if we do, it should obviously stay a redirect and pointing where it now does. The Pederasty#Modern view section does in fact talk about modern views of practices that have been called pederasty (sex between a man and a boy). Crossroads ^-talk- 20:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One way to keep the edit history is if we move redirect to another space like views on pederasty in the modern world or something and then deleted the original title.★Trekker (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this, but wouldn't that break attribution? The attribution in the history of Pederasty would go to the old title, which would be a red link and/or a nonexistent page and not lead to the edit history of the renamed redirect, thus defeating the purpose of keeping it. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite its sordid history, I don't see anything harmful about this redirect. We provide access with all sorts of variant and deprecated terms. If the article content gave such impressions about current use of the term "pederasty", that would be a separate, fixable issue. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to be clear, I know we need to keep this now. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Comparative morphology

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. This has been open for a hot minute. There was a good amount of options presented, and out of it all, I don't see a significant amount of support for any specific new option, and not a lot of opposition to the current target per comments in the discussion seemingly suggesting other targets, but not necessarily stating why the current target is problematic. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative morphology → Comparative anatomy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Evolutionary physiology, which is what comparative morphology entails and is a subset of. Another article of this sort is Comparative physiology, and there may be others. We probably need some merging. There are really only two topics here: the study of evolutionary relationships as evidenced by physiological morphology, between earlier and later life forms that appear to be related, such as fossil amphibians and modern salamanders; and the study of differences between and similarities among contemporary organisms [related or not], such as primates and felids. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised it's at Comparative Anatomy to begin with, because I've always known it as Comparative morphology. Never heard of this new-fangled (?) term Evolutionary physiology, but then again, I've been out of the loop for a decade or two. Still, I lean towards for keeping as-is, until I investigated this issue more. Amphioxys (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-> Comparative morphology First of all Anatomy is a subset of Morphology mostly concerning itself with macroscopic and internal structures and organs, including their placement and function with regards an organism's body functions, and especially of interest to medical/veterinarian applications. Morphology is concerned with the different forms that bodily structures can take and their relationship with corresponding organs in other organisms. So I would unequivocally vote for having the article moved to Comparative morphology. With regards to Evolutionary physiology, despite its obvious overlap, this is an different field of study, focusing more on the evolutionary processes shaping bodily structures. The differences may seem subtle, but clear enough in my eyes. Amphioxys (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whatever target we decide may need a hatnote for the linguistics meaning (though the biology meaning is the clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by reliable-source usage and incoming links). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't like multiple relists, but as such, we're headed to the sort of no-consensus close that pleases no one. Some discussion questions: is there a more specific place for the linguistic topic than Morphology (linguistics)? Given the inherent ambiguity of the base term, would retargeting to the disambiguation page at Morphology do any good?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the dab page Morphology per BDD's suggestion in the relist, I don't see another way out of this situation due to the use of the term "morphology" across disciplines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose retarget to Morphology, comparative is not mentioned there and would be confusing for someone looking for something more specific. I haven't researched the topic enough to be comfortable to !vote this way, but from a glance, the current target doesn't look problematic per Amphioxys and 59. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I think of morphology, my first thought is linguistics. My hunch is that some form of comparative morphology exists for most or all fields that have a concept called morphology. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a specific disambiguation on "comparative morphology" may make sense if we have content on "comparative morphology" in multiple fields. The disambiguation page at Morphology is too broad though, and thus unhelpful for those looking for specialized information on this exact topic. If we want to go this route, can we brainstorm a disambiguation? What's better for the linguistics term, Comparative linguistics or Morphology (linguistics)? Are there any other articles that would make sense? Comparative physiology? -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging SMcCandlish and Amphioxys; perhaps they've continued to follow this discussion, perhaps not. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with Tavix. For the linguistic one, I would use Comparative linguistics, of which comparative morphology is conceptually half but in practice the bulk of the work (vs. comparative phonology). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Back again! I'm strongly opposed to Comparative physiology, because Physiology is more focused on bodily functions rather than form. I'd prefer Comparative morphology, which is the term I'm used to, but I would begrudgingly accept Comparative anatomy, if need be. I know there is a discipline within Linguistics called the same, but within Biology, the discipline of Morphology is well-established and ought not give rise to confusion within context. Amphioxys (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Francisco Javier Solana de Madariaga, Ph.D.

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

The result of the discussion was speedy restore original target, Javier Solana - the Antichrist target was indeed the indirect result of vandalism. This close is without prejudice to a future discussion if anyone thinks this is not a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Javier Solana de Madariaga, Ph.D. → Antichrist (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Possible G10, but since Xqbot is the most recent thing in the edit history, this may have been misplaced as a result of double-redirecting fixing after vandalism. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Phaz

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phaz → Antichrist (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A Google search for this term brings up nothing associated with the Antichrist Hog Farm _Bacon 14:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enwiki has several mentions of "Phaz" in music contexts, but not sufficient for a retarget, so Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rockwell Space Shuttle

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Space Shuttle orbiter. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwell Space Shuttle → Space Shuttle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Rockwell did not build the entire Shuttle stack. Retarget to Space Shuttle orbiter. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

concur with Soumya - re-target the re-direct--Petebutt (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, change redirect to target to Space Shuttle orbiter. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#NASA/Rockwell Shuttle. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REtarget per nom. Rockwell did not build the entire shuttle stack -- 70.51.44.93 (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Imola Grand Prix

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Imola Grand Prix

Alex Navarro

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Navarro → Giant Bomb (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Wasn't notable enough to remain an article about the person, and redirect is just continually updated to their current employer, and has been that way since 2007 Strangerpete (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and let the search tool do its job; he has several mentions. Also delete from Navarro (surname). Narky Blert (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: I noticed that Giant Bomb has a few of these employee->company redirects, and I'm having trouble finding a relevant WP policy for this. It seems to me that even if one of the names is notable, if their respective article and the target article fail to mention or show notability, or a linked section, that it's a fairly useless redirect and shouldn't exist. But I'm hesitant to nominate all the names right off the bat though; Ryan_Davis_(video_game_journalist) is the only one that appears appropriate. Should anyone listed as an employee get a redirect? -Strangerpete (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Strangerpete: Notability is irrelevant for redirects, it's utility that matters. I have a two-part test: is there useful info at the target? does the redirect impede searching? Alex Navarro fails at least the second part - type "Alex Navarro ." (the full stop bypasses the redirect) into the searchbox, and you'll see he crops up all over the place. A qualified title is OK if test #1 is met - readers can search easily without the qualifier. Ryan_Davis_(video_game_journalist) is a good redirect - it points to a section with his name on it and 5 paras specifically about him. Furthermore, it has history which needs preserving - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Davis (video game journalist). On the other hand, Alex Navarro is basically only a name mentioned in passing. Narky Blert (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chronology of the Bible.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Bible. → Chronology of the Bible (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Unlikely search target. Sandstein 10:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This redirect exists because of the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Bible. (2nd nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: does the edit history now mean it shouldn't be deleted? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily, the comment was informational. However I should have thought to ping participants in that discussion: @ByzantiumLives, Lightburst, Melmann, and Ifnord:. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough history on this version to keep it around; it was only started this month from a user draft, while the article without the period is far more detailed and has been around since 2007. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the advice above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom and consensus. of these various redirects with a period at the end. from which this is no different. This kinda seems like search bar clutter. Regards. SONIC678 15:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My feeling is that the original contributor has had ample opportunity to identify any remaining potential to add value, and the the failure to do so suggests that this was experimental use of the platform rather than a substantive effort to assist. Time to let it go, I'd say. ByzantiumLives (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MC

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

The result of the discussion was keep. User has been reblocked for CIR issues and violating the spirit of their editing restrictions in general. They also withdrew this besides. -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MC → Master of ceremonies (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~MC is usually used as an initial for Minecraft, not Master of Ceremonies, and should be retargeted per WP:COMMONNAME.~~ Per Zxcvbnm and Hellknowz, i support a redirect to MC (disambiguation) instead, as it can refer to many things. ^{the ultraUsurper} 10:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose When I think of "MC", I think of "master of ceremonies", there is no way that the common use for it is Minecraft amongst the general populace. I might support moving MC (disambiguation) there, however, if such a move discussion was made._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Common name is definitely the term used and commonly abbreviated in multiple fields rather than a video game. As per Zxcvbnm, at best it would point to the dab page and not Minecraft. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. User has been reblocked on CIR grounds and violating the general spirit of their editing restrictions about redirects. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia → Wikipedia:About (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think someone searching this would want to see Wikipedia's article of itself instead. Retarget to Wikipedia or even better Wikipedia:Wikipedia (disambiguation) so the reader can pick what they wanted to see. ^{the ultraUsurper} 05:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In simple terms, someone typing Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:Wikipedia are generally seeking the same thing: information about the website they're at. That information should be hosted at a single page, Wikipedia:About, rather than sending users seeking the most basic kind of information on a chase through disambiguation pages and other hurdles. (We don't want to end up with a situation like our editing intro, where many new users get sent to the awful Help:Getting started, which is basically a disambiguation page, and then have to decide for themselves which of our 47 attempts at creating a unified editing intro they want to use, assuming they don't just give up, as most probably do.) Granted, Wikipedia:About could use a major overhaul, since right now it's far too long and trying too hard to be an encyclopedia article rather than an accessible introduction. But when a topic's page isn't the best, we should improve the page, not direct users to a different topic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article Wikipedia is also gives information about the website they're at. I think that would be more helpful. ^{the ultraUsurper} 10:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Main Page

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Plenty of people have opined that this redirect would be a better name for the Main Page than what it is. To put it succinctly: this redirect has practically no chance of being retargeted anywhere due to heaps of old links. No chance. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Main Page → Main Page (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not sure if this is the right place to address this, but i don't this anyone searching "Wikipedia:Main Page" would want to go to the main page, but rather read an article on the Wikipedia main page. ^{the ultraUsurper} 05:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Reublic of Korea Army

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reublic of Korea Army → Republic of Korea Army (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is the only such misspelling of Republic on Wikipedia, and a completely unnecessary one, especially for this article. ^{the ultraUsurper} 04:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; harmless. Nitpicking, but this isn't the only such misspelling on the site. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just some spelling mistakes on some pages, and i was talking about redirects. The redirect Reublic doesn't exist, so this shouldn't too. Also, just because something is "harmless", doesn't mean we should push an incorrect redirect. ^{the ultraUsurper} 06:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, typos are not the harmful type of incorrect by any stretch. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Implausible misspelling, useless clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not sure if it's a plausible misspelling, also it seems to get light years less pageviews than its target. Regards, SONIC678 04:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J947. CompassOwl (talk to me!) 21:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible typo. "Republik" and "republick" would be plausible, given the vagaries of English spelling (especially for learners). But we cannot account for every dropped letter, or we'd also need "epublic", "rpublic", "repblic", "repulic", "repubic", "republc", "republi", and similar patterns for every article. We should only keep typo redirs that are in patterns that make linguistic sense to occur with some regularity. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMcCandlish above. Unlikely misspelling, not common enough for it to have its own redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:5D

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Nom has been reblocked on CIR/editing restriction issues about redirects. For the record, 5D refers to "five disclaimers". -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:5D → Wikipedia:General disclaimer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm struggling to understand what this has to with it's target. If it does have something to do with it, please correct me. ^{the ultraUsurper} 03:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Iphone 5g

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 4#Iphone 5g

Untitled Schulman/Joost project

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Schulman/Joost project → Project Power (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Has a title now. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, at least until there's a new Schulman/Joost project announced. At its current target, this thing might cause confusion. Regards, SONIC678 21:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This is the result of a page move in May and it is still getting multiple hits most days so it is clearly still useful. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sonic678. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 2

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Speculative at best, not mentioned in target, potentially created in bad faith. ~ mazca ^talk 23:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 2 → Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not actually the name of the target as far as I can tell, created by an editor later blocked for multiple reasons. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Samsung Galaxy Z Flip. As far as I can tell, this is a future product. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Galaxy Z Fold 2 could be confused with Flip 2, also as mention by Shhhnotsoloud, it is a future product, and should be turned into an article once announced. Also i'm no longer blocked. the ultra Usurper 14:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Can someone relist this as it seems like no one is commenting on this and i'm getting kinda bored? Thanks. the ultra Usurper 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- N.b. User:UltraUsurper (redirect creator) is now blocked for "wasting massive amounts of other editor times in the redirect space.". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of mention. Redirects should never be created simply because someone is "bored". Good block. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we can't tell if this is referring to an entirely speculative model or a misnomer for an upcoming one, that's weak stuff indeed. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Middle-earth articles by category

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Saw this was an R from move too late, this probably needs kept. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 01:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle-earth articles by category → Outline of Middle-earth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target article is not a list of articles by category, nor do I believe that one exists for this subject. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Bad Guys (upcoming film)

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Guys (upcoming film) → List of DreamWorks Animation productions#Upcoming films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary redirecg Starzoner (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to The Bad Guys (film), which is what it's referring to, and which already has an article, at least until that movie is released. When that happens, the redirect can always be deleted to free up some space for articles about other movies by that title. Regards, SONIC678 18:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noting that The Bad Guys (film) exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article exists at a different title, so a placeholder redirect is unnecessary. It would be deleted after the film is released anyway, but we might as well take care of it now while we're here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lord of The Rings - The Hobbit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#Lord of The Rings - The Hobbit

Template:G

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

The result of the discussion was D. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G → Template:Spaces (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Maybe I'm missing something super-obvious, but when I see "Template:G" my first thought is definitely not "oh, that's for adding spaces". The initial recreation of this template had the summary used all over the place, but at current count I only see 147 (which, granted, is not nothing, but not a huge amount either). In other words, for a single-letter template there's no good connection to the target and it makes no sense to have it pointing there. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sometimes people need to go back to old versions of pages. (I think that is why we keep the page histories.) We therefore want the old versions to work. It is a huge pain, if they do not work because they have calls to deleted templates whose function is non-obvious. Keeping this redirect therefore helps preserve the functionality of old versions of pages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"breaks old transclusions" is never a reason to keep things. Otherwise we would have never deleted {{persondata}} or any of dozens upon dozens of templates. If people are confused by a sudden redlinked template, they can go to it and see why. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sympathetic to Toddy1's concerns here, but this is such a bad redirect that it just shouldn't exist, and I think the benefit from preventing future uses outweighs any harm in mangling page histories. Such harm could be further mitigated by keeping a record of deleted (or changed) template shortcuts. Does such a page exist for keeping track of these? If not, it might be worth setting up. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Replace and~~ delete. There are only 141 transclusions of this confusingly unintuitive template name, and I'm about to make that a shorter list. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Now there are 0. Most of them were due to transclusion or substitution of a handful of templates (especially a long-deleted one named shoutbox), while most of the rest were due to having been added to infoboxes by one editor who focused on Dutch bios. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly implausible redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it was G for "gap" or something? Wild. Not useful to keep around, now that it's been removed in use, deletion would be ideal. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Freshman Year (Album)

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Freshman Year (album). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freshman Year (Album) → Hop Along (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Yeehaw45 with the reason "This page should be deleted as it was made under a typo and server no purpose, if there were to be this page, it should redirect to the "Freshman Year (album)" page" FASTILY 01:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to correctly capitalized Freshman Year (album), per original alternate proposal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete changing !vote; forgot completely about WP:RDAB. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Freshman Year (album) and hatnote to Hop Along. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Freshman Year (album) as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. This is a {{R from move}} and when retargetted will be a completely harmless redirect to the obviously correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the correct version exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Freshman Year (album) per nom, I can see people holding the ⇧ Shift key for too long, like I've said earlier with Coby (Disambiguation). Regards, SONIC678 01:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Freshman Year (album). It's old, reasonable, and not harmful. Why delete when there's a clear good target? Hog Farm _Bacon 02:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget, because it's an {{R from move}}; would say to delete it otherwise, since capital-A "(Album)" isn't a WP disambiguator. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Giro del pepino

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

The result of the discussion was Delete/WP:CSD#G3. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giro del pepino → Cutter_(professional_wrestling)#Twist_of_Fate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Yon Sida → John Cena (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Amorfo Kbron → John Cena (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Fuguemeee! → John Cena (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Rapero Amorfo → John Cena (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

John Sida → John Cena (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

All look to be nonsense redirects created by the same user (see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 23#Mono Kbron). No meaningful results in Google (mostly things related to these redirects most likely) and none appear anywhere on Wikipedia let alone on the relevant articles. Amorfo Kbron has a particularly interesting history, originally redirecting to Adam Copeland, then Lewis Hamilton (which is where Mono Kbron links), and finally John Cena. A7V2 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou to those who have clarified what the names mean. I forgot to add in my original listing but I support deleting all. A7V2 (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are just insults in Spanish. John Sida, Yon Sida, related to AIDS. Rapero Amorfo ->amorphous rapper Amorfo Kbron -> Amorphous asshole. Giro del Pepino ->Awesome twist, but isn't the official name. Del pepino is when you sya something is very big colloquially --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its certainly surprising these have existed since June 2008 but indeed I have searched for Amorfo Kbron and apart from social media there appears indeed to be things about insults in Spanish. I expect all should be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the two Sida ones per WP:G10. Abusive insult about AIDS used nowhere in reliable sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A bunch of Spanish insults, shocking how these weren't deleted ages ago. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

B00n

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B00n → Newbie (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article, a Google search indicates this is a slang term not widely used in reliable sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I guess n00b but backwards? ~~I don't have an opinion on whether or not to keep this~~. the ultra Usurper 02:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Boon ^{the ultraUsurper} 05:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an obvious search for "noob" or "boon". A pointless redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thoroughly implausible search term for anything. Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence that "n00b" backwards is in actual use by anyone. Nor do we normally have a bunch of 0/o redirects, because people don't seem to often actually confuse the characters. If they did, I could see redirecting this to boon. What's more apt to happen is confusion between capital O and 0, especially in arbitrary strings like serial/model numbers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1101110 0110000 0110000 1100010

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1101110 0110000 0110000 1100010 → Newbie (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm highly confused as to what this has to do with the target. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently "n00b" in binary code. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is highly unlikely that someone will search this for newbie, especially since n00b already exists in Wikipedia, and we don't need a binary format of that. the ultra Usurper 02:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an obvious redirect at all whatsoever. I wouldn't expect most people to search in binary code._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above, I can't find any actual uses of it just a handful of explanations of what it means (not all of which are independent of each other). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, really. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:R3. A a s i m 18:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't recently created so it doesn't qualify for R3. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 07:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rhimdath

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhimdath → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Enwiki has no content about Rhimdath. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With exactly no instances of this term in article space (and nothing in project space other than lists of titles) this is not a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Middle-earth rivers (2nd nomination), where the content used to reside (see also Rivers of Middle-earth. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ליקר

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ליקר → Liquor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:RFFL. No strong connection between Hebrew and alcohol. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RLOTE. Narky Blert (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 19:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Willy surgery

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Willy surgery → Circumcision (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Apparently created in 2018 as a redirect from the draftspace to the articlespace. Delete per WP:XNR. Note that Willy surgery doesn't exist, and probably shouldn't. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: that's an absurd redirect. Prcc27 (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this junk (no pun intended). To be fair, "willy" is slang for penis, but the results on Google I got were for penis surgery in general rather than any specific type, also we don't have Penis surgery. Regards, SONIC678 03:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvs. Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ^{the ultraUsurper} 10:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If we did have penis surgery or something equivalent (penile surgery, male genital surgery, etc.), then it would be a plausible redirect to that, as would versions with "dick", "cock", etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.