Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 ACC Championship Game → ACC Championship Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in target article. Contest a year away and not yet notable. Blethering Scot 22:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Misleading redirect at the moment, based on the current target. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 2024 ACC Championship Game already concluded, and this is one year away. Abhiramakella (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 Mountain West Conference Football Championship Game → Mountain West Conference Football Championship Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No notable mention in target article and contest is a year away. Blethering Scot 22:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Misleading redirect at the moment, based on the current target. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 Abu Dhabi T10 → Abu Dhabi T10  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Future event not discussed at target. Blethering Scot 22:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Misleading redirect at the moment, based on the current target. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above per above^[hyperbole]. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• April 31 → List of non-standard dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The only reasoning for this appears to be "Java (specifically the java.util.Calendar class) allows dates such as February 0 (= January 31) and April 31 (= March 1)." The problem is that that particular class in Java seems to accept any integer for the date. I tested "April 366" which showed up as March 31 of the next year. The internet does say that there is a reference to "April 31" in the The Long Walk by Stephen King, but it is purposely supposed to be a fictional date, even within that universe. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The statement was added unsourced (and shouldn't it be "May 1"?). Even if factual, "April 31" is totally arbitrary: it could apply to anything, #September 31, March 32, your "April 366", etc. (fyi Bfinn) Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The same can be said about December 32, January 0, February 30, and many others. The redirect isn't to imply it's factual or not, it's to fulfill the gaps for the day 31 every month has in Wikipedia, such as June 31 and February 31. Web-julio (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Each of those has unique encyclopedic information. Unlike September 31.

  And note, "filling in the gaps" is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay (note: not policy), and this is a discussion page (the D in AfD stands for deletion while the D from RfD means discussion).

  Filling the gaps is exactly why many redirects exist, and other stuff existing is the main reason why many redirects should be kept. And for example, different from AfD, WP:CHEAP, WP:USEFUL (see also WP:RFD#KEEP), and HARMLESS are valid arguments to use in RfD, and they are used frequently, including this current page. Web-julio (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  RfDs are deletion discussions, because this is where the deletion of redirects is discussed. That "deletion" is not in the title of the venue is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  is the existence of outcomes other than "keep" and "delete" (retarget, disambiguate, etc.) enough to disagree with that? rfd is a discussion venue, and deletion is one of the possible results cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But there's Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, which distinguishes AfD and RfD. This is a discussion that proposes a deletion, so technically is a deletion discussion, but not every RfD is a deletion discussion. Well, neither some AfDs, but why would someone AfD proposing to merge or rename if there are specific tools for that? The alternative is redirect in an AfD, but even there some see this as a form of deletion.

  Nonetheless, that essay still says that what doesn't apply in an AfD may or may not apply to other forms of discussions. Also Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Web-julio (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I'm not sure why it matters that WP:ATA is "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". The aim of the essay is to list off ways of "contributing" to a given discussion that may instead just hinder the discussion, such as WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, or, indeed, WP:OTHERSTUFF. As the opener to the essay itself states,While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the current target page talk wasn't notified. Web-julio (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the target mentions Excel, but doesn't get into the use of these nonstandard dates in formulas (it only mentions the weird 1900 problem). In Excel and programs like it, if you add one day to the last day of a month, it returns the first day of the following month. It doesn't recognize April 31 as a valid date if you write it in a cell directly, but April 30 + 1 = May 1. I'm not sure if that could fit into content in the article, or if it's more prominent than other uses that have been suggested here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. May 1 was the 2014 discussion outcome. But April 30 might be the likely sought-for page for users who simply forgot April's last date. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_14#September_31 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not mentioned at target, and I see no other relevant target. Jay 💬 17:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Unopposed to delete, consistent with September 31 outcome. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 08:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nightb***h (film) → Nightbitch (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not censored. Name of film is simply nightbitch, and therefore redirect is an unlikely search term. Blethering Scot 22:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only one hit on Google, so this plausible censoring is not actually in common use. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That one hit is from the Daily Mail, which, while very far from a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, is very widely-read. That makes this a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we usually don't house "censored" redirects, and especially not those that aren't commonly used and have one ghit but since the one hit was from The Daily Mail which is very widely-read we should keep this Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's statement. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as implausible censoring. just say "b*tch" if you're that worried about the fuck words. of course, this means i'd consider "nightb*tch (film)" to be a plausible redirect cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't realistically assume anyone, even the most naïve person, not knowing what the missing word is and searching to find out more of this item they had to self-censor. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep attested in the Daily Mail, WP:CHEAP applies. This is a navigation aid, given that a popular (if unreliable) source used it. Fieari (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the Daily Mail hits (there's now a second one, actually) and WP:CHEAP. No need to delete. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Female youtuber → YouTuber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Gender an unlikely additional search term for a YouTuber. Blethering Scot 22:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Blethering Scot: Not sure I understand your deletion rationale. How is it unlikely? "Ambiguous" is probably the word you meant to use. And I might add that it's also misleading, since there aren't any "female YouTubers" at the target. Delete. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is certainly ambiguous, and not relevant to the target. However I also don't see it as a search term that is likely to be used, to find that article. Probably just my way of wording things. Blethering Scot 22:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Plausible or not, there's no such topic at the target, so it's a misleading redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 02:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listing female youtubers and categorizing them is WikiTubia's job nevermind, wikitubia apparantly doesn't categorize youtuber's by gender? i just tried it with Jaiden, couldn't find a link to something like Category:Female youtubers Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GENDER and WP:NPOV. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GENDER and WP:NPOV. Pls stop sexism (Cheers). 2A0E:41E:481:0:8580:5047:4FEB:E6F8 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I struggle to see how both policies nor sexism applies here. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

create an article about viva reverie, retarget to her as she is the only female youtuber to have ever existed ever (besides all the others), and then delete per nom and someone. steps 1 and 2 are optional cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of canonizations → Lists of saints  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of saints. Absolutiva (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After reviewing the AfD, I don't see any reason to delete the redirect. It's just been retargeted to the new list of lists. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hi. I created a page with this name 19 years ago, which apparently is reason to leave me a boilerplate message notifying me of this discussion. I'll level with you here. I cannot remember why precisely I created this page under the name list of canonizations rather than list of saints. I think it might have been to keep the scope down, originally? Ultimately though my original intent doesn't matter. But there is a perfectly good edit history spanning over a decade for this page, whereas, Lists of saints? That was created in November. Like, last month. Since List of canonizations has been apparently a good enough article name to have spanned until 2020, when it was redirected to List of saints, I think there might be some cause to believe that we should not remove the redirect from this URL, which has remained valid for 14 years, along with its entire edit history. Morwen (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Presidentman. NLeeuw (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An article being deleted is not rationale to delete a redirect. AfD and RfD are completely different processes with entirely different criteria. This is a valid redirect. Fieari (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Lists of saints per new target at AFD and the consensus here to keep. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of canonized saints → Lists of saints  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of saints. Absolutiva (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After reviewing the AfD, I don't see any reason to delete the redirect. It's just been retargeted to the new list of lists. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Presidentman. NLeeuw (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Few things said at AfD are likely to be relevant at RfD, to be honest. This is a valid redirect. Fieari (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Barotrauma#Barotrauma in other animals. Jay 💬 07:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Barotrauma and Wind turbines → Bat#Conservation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"barotrauma" refers to damage caused by air pressure differences. while pretty unique to bats since their lungs are held together with thoughts and prayers, it's not exclusive to them. granted, getting sent to the shadow realm due to barotrauma from the low-pressure areas just behind the blades of wind turbines is a little more closely associated with bats, but it's not what the redirect's wording necessarily implies cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the intersection of the two topics is unique to bats - other animals that it's thought are impacted by wind farms are harmed by impact damage flying into them, not pressure damage from being near them. This is covered in detail at the target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Barotrauma#Barotrauma in other animals. It just so happens that Barotrauma#Barotrauma in other animals talks specifically about barotrauma and wind turbines (referring to bats as well), which renders this redirect a little less surprising and isn't WP:XY-type ambiguous. Maybe this can be moved to Barotrauma and wind turbines (no capital W) if we want to be particular about formatting. ― Synpath 20:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i was more concerned with the use of "and", as opposed to "from" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Synpath · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Synpath. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fado (character) → The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fado is indirectly mentioned in the passageTetra remains in the castle while Link and the King journey to the two sages who provided the Master Sword's power. They discover Ganon's forces murdered them both (which includes Fado). Maybe a mention could be added but I am doubtful. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's good enough for the redirect to target there, since he isn't mentioned by name. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not been added to the target. Also, thoughts on the pre-BLAR page history in case of preference to delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Concur with QuicoleJR. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per QuicoleJR, given that the page history is fairly trivial and I can't find any other characters named Fado who have a mention. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ^Complex/_Rational 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• State of Palestine' → State of Palestine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

self-explanatory Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like an unrepaired typo. No incoming mainspace links. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 02:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A "stray" apostrophe is fine for the possessive case of plural nouns that end with "s", none of which describe Palestine Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate over QE:NONCOMMON.^[hyperbole]

Actual text

Delete per WP:UNNATURAL.

67.209.128.31 (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of WP:RCOM'...
  Oh..... the apostrophe is right next to the Enter key; maybe you could accidentally just press in between the Enter and ' keys?
  So it's not WP:RCOM here but WP:PANDORA; for this may lead others to believe that there are redirects everywhere for this. Legitimate reason for this, but still Delete. Kxeon (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ^Complex/_Rational 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Israel" → Israel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnatural redirect. There is no reason to put the country's name in quotes unless in a pejorative sense. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete" per WP:UNNATURAL. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" Prior consensus (which for the life of me I can't find) dictates that unless the thing in question is officially stylized in quotes that a redirect surrounded in quotes should be deleted Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as alt-right POV pushing. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:UNNATURAL RealStranger43286 (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "WP:UNNATURAL"; plus why even have "this" in the first "place"?
"This" "redirect" shouldn't exist, "nobody" will ever do "this"; even if "they" do find it on the "internet"; "they" wouldn't be typing it into "Wikipedia" like "this". Kxeon (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 三州府 → Straits Settlements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's two possible targets for 三州府: Straits Settlements and Suong. 三州府 is an old alternative Chinese-language name Straits Settlements, and 三州府市 (三州府 + city) is the name historically and currently used by Chinese-speakers and Chinese Cambodians people for Suong. The Chinese Wikipedia has chosen to solve this with a disambiguation page zh:三州府, so this term seemingly cannot be tied very strongly to one article. I'm not seeing how we could create a local policy-compliant dab page. Given the very high bar needed to have a non-English redirect page, we should probably delete this. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cambodia is not a Chinese language subject. But the Straits Settlements are due to the high Chinese population of the region. Thus regardless of what Chinese Wikipedia does, on English Wikipedia, the only subject with affinity for Chinese is the Straits Settlements, and not Suong, Cambodia. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I stand corrected on the status of Chinese in Suong, being that there is a large population of such in Suong; therefore I recommend that this page be disambiguated per WP:CJKV {{Chinese title disambiguation}} and create a WP:2DAB like that on Chinese Wikipedia because both locations have large Chinese populations and both locations have carried this Chinese name. ;; So either Keep as is and hatnote Suong, or disambiguate -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the ip editor. A hatnote can be added if really desired, but I don't think it is required. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, per the Chinese Wikipedia article for Suong, Cambodia, 80 per cent of the population in the city are of Chinese ethnicity, so the above rationale might not be valid. However, it doesn't appear to be cited properly (the current source does not provide such information). If there is some related reliable source found, then perhaps a dab, otherwise keep. Sun8908 _Talk 15:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anecdotal evidence- I mean if we compare the length and detail of the zhWiki article to the Khmer article, I wouldn't be surprised if the statement that 80% of the population are Sino-Khmer turns out to be true. Baidu Baike(keeping in mind WP:BAIDU and all) also repeats the statistic, citing it to what looks to be an offline database. (@Sun8908, does it look obviously unreliable in this case?)

  But back to the matter at hand- Wiktionary lists the Cambodian city first, emphasizing that the usage of 三州府 is "historical". Again, uncited, but I googled and the Promote Mandarin Council (in Singapore) seemingly confirms this, writing that the name was used most inthe early days. The Cantonese Wikipedia lists their (unsourced) article for the Straits Settlement under the name 三洲府, but zhWiki only mentions once that it's an unofficial name. Our own article doesn't mention the name at all. It's clearly not a clear-cut matter.

  When I google "三洲府", my own results are pretty evenly split between the city and the settlement, which I think is why the editors on zhWiki chose to make a dab page in the end. They seemed to have the opposite problem as us, actually, with their initial redirect pointing, for four years, to the article about Suong. I'm not suggesting we should follow them, I'm just pointing out that there is unlikely to be a dominant topic. I suppose if somebody wants to make a dab page, they could, I suppose? Three States is a direct translation, and already a dab page, but I don't think we really make dab pages for direct translations where the direct translation is not used in English. A dab for the direct transliteration might be better, if anybody wants to make one? I'm not convinced it would aid people trying to navigate the English Wikipedia, but I suppose it wouldn't be harmful. A hatnote could be a solution, but I'm not sure how useful non-English/Latin hatnotes for unofficial names are.

  On a personal note, this is why WP:RLOTE based on unofficial nicknames can be problematic- the predominant argument to keep is that Suong, Cambodia has no affinity with the Chinese language. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just want you to note that we indeed have dab pages with Chinese characters as title. We could do that if it turns out there isn't a main article between the two entries. That being said, a main article should be decided with the likeliness that English speaker would more likely want to search. I think there are Chinese-language newspapers in Cambodia using that name to refer to the Cambodian city, so it might worth a dab. Sun8908 _Talk 05:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I missed reading the reliability of the source on Baidu Baike. I am not familiar with the site but I cannot see a link for that citation. I cannot search any useful information about the database / centre by simply searching on Baidu or Google. (Note: there seems to be a lot of database with a similar name, I don't know which to look for) However, that citation seems to be used by a lot of articles on Baidu Baike. Unfortunately, only verified users can see the edit history, so I cannot get any further information from there. I don't feel like it is particularly useful as I cannot find information about the database / centre. Sun8908 _Talk 11:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to a disambi , I have no further comment. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Buxamina → γ-Amino-β-hydroxybutyric acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Bussamina → γ-Amino-β-hydroxybutyric acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Gamalate → γ-Amino-β-hydroxybutyric acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kolpo → γ-Amino-β-hydroxybutyric acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Diastal → γ-Amino-β-hydroxybutyric acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These appear to at best be very obscure trade names for the target drug. Gamalate and Diastal appear to refer to different drugs. Buxamina may be the Spanish version of Buxamine, but there is no special affinity for Spanish related to the target. Delete all. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Tomb. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Entomb → Burial  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Entombment → Burial  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Burial does not have any content about entombment per se; the most is a brief mention of immurement. The article's scope, per its lede sentence, is "a method of final disposition whereby a dead body is placed into the ground", whereas Wiktionary defines entomb as "To deposit in a tomb". Which, hey, we have an article on! So I suggest a retarget to tomb. Failing that, I would say we should move Entombment (disambiguation) to the base title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to tomb per nom Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget differently. This archaic term "Entombment" is generally only found in the traditional title for the many works of art showing the Entombment of Christ. Suggest we redirect it there. "The Entombment" already redirects there - see also what The Entombment (disambiguation) contains. The verb can probably go to Tomb. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The word "entombment" is not archaic, at least in American English. It remains widely used to describe placing a body (sometimes Jesus', but usually someone else') in a tomb [1] [2] [3]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Tomb per nom. I agree with Tamzin that "entombment" is not archaic English, it is in fact in common use to this day for the act of putting a body in a tomb (whether that body is alive or dead at the time!). Now, this act is not, in fact, that common, which means the word gets less used, but the act is not unheard of either, meaning that the word does get used. Fieari (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to tomb. The nomination's reasoning is sound. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Greg peg → Patiala peg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target; originally created via suspected promotional content added to target Jalen Barks (Woof) 02:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh boy this one is a doozy.

So, this was created in 2020 as a redirect to Patiala peg but as early as 2021 different(?) IPs keep on editing this to a unsourced stub about a specific Patiala peg type/brand(?) in Punjab. A war between Renamed user 7z42t3k8qj (who was continually editing the redirect to turn back into a redir, the only reason I'm not pinging them is because they've been inactive since 2021) and IPs were going on until this revision when it was stopped and it seemed like 7z4 won.

Until 200 weeks and 2 days (!) later, when the IP suddenly remembered they have a unsourced stub to maintain. Then, since 7z4 was inactive and has been for over 200 weeks at that point @Frost (who I am pinging because they're obviously still active) took 7z4's place. This IP rev decided to add their current menu (in INR, may I add?) to their ideal version of the Greg peg article until nom stepped in and did their role.

IP, noticing their pet article was under RfD decided to remove the tag without discussion, which was noticed and reverted by nom. That is, until IP strikes back with this rev which is mostly similar to the earlier one except the menu is in code this time. Finally, nom reverted this article to it's current state.

TLDR; some dude in Punjab wanted to advertise their beer(?) on Wikipedia and is still editing the article to this day.

why did i put more effort into writing this than i do with my school essays Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 06:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncomfiness → Comfort  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a word Hexware (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to wikt:Uncomfiness per my !vote on the "Uncomfort" discussion below. That is also a word, just not used as often. Regards, SONIC678 16:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, both per WP:SOFTSP, which reserves this for words that would be commonly wikified, which is hard to see happening for this, but also because Wiktionary redirects are generally harmful. Ngrams finds zero occurrences of this in all of its corpora. It's hard to imagine anyone seriously using this as a search term. And for the record, even a keep would be preferable to the Wikt redirect, since that would at least lead to encyclopedic content about comfort. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is a word: see wikt:Uncomfiness. Keep consistent with Uncomfortableness and Discomfort. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wiktionary is not a reliable source, but the OED is, which doesn't have en entry for it. Wiktionary is pretty lenient with what it considers words, and we can exercise a little common sense here and get rid of implausible search terms, even if you can find an attestation or 3 lying around. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Attestation with meaning is basically the definition of a word according to modern understanding of the subject (see: Linguistic description) and we don't really need a reliable source just to say a word exists. Fieari (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's already tagged as a redirect from antonym, and as a colloquial term. It's fine. We target antonyms all the time, as Shhh pointed out above. If people really want to, I don't strenuously object to sending this to wiktionary, but that shouldn't be necessary. Fieari (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "uncomfiness" is a word I do use from time to time. + the OED may not have an entry for "uncomf i ness" specifically but they do have entries for uncomfYness which is a one-letter difference Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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