Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21

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 Defence Committee. Jay 💬 06:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Defense Committee → General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - redirect currently links to General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists which does not mention the phrase and unless I'm missing something a defense committee normally refers to a group organising legal support for a person eg Leonard Peltier Defense Committee goes to Leonard Peltier. Defense (legal) doesn't mention committees so I think probably best to delete, a better redirect could always be promoted in future but right now it's just confusing Mujinga (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — apparently I was the original creator. The redirect was initially to a more specific topic, but even then such a general term as ″defense committee″ should not point there. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Creator is fine with deletion as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the disambig at Defence Committee, adding any other relevant topics there. Although all the entries currently listed do use the Commonwealth English spelling, the US-English spelling is a plausible search term for them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget to Defence Committee per Thryduulf. Variation found, let's get this thing closed. Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  great that makes sense! Mujinga (talk) 18:15, 22 January 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. [Rationale added:] The nomination sought deletion as a term that has no probability of being searched. Participants favouring deletion also argued that the term was superfluous and may be a POV. All arguments were countered by participants who voted to keep the term as a redirect. Jay 💬 17:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society → Martyrdom in Palestinian society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Background: We had an AfD for the article "Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society" that closed as keep, hinged on changing the title to drop "Glorification of" as editors felt it was inappropriate and inflammatory.

We then initiated a move discussion at the talk page, which had unanimous support in favor of dropping "Glorification of" from the title for the same reasons.

As numerous editors felt that the old title was not acceptable, and I find it improbable that a reader is going to search for a title that starts with "glorification of", I believe the old title should be deleted.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per {{R from move}} and WP:RNEUTRAL. 92.17.4.86 (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this discussion falls under the extended confirmed restriction for Arab-Israeli conflict content. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate Tamzin's striking of the above IP editor !vote per the extended confirmed restrictions. I would like to very briefly respond to the IP's argument in case any eligible !voters may find it agreeable. We are not required to keep an offensive title as a redirect if the redirect is not useful; it is not a plausible search term and there is minimal risk of link rot due to how the page has not existed for a significant length of time. Looking through the "what links here" results revealed that most of the links to it were inappropriate easter eggs anyways. I have gone through all the links to either update to the new title where appropriate or remove the in-text link where inappropriate, so deleting this redirect will not break anything.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    But could those redirects work to prevent those offensive articles continually reappearing? Irtapil (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "prevent those offensive articles continually reappearing" - If we want to prevent offensive article titles from continual recreation, that's what salt is for.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Salting is a way of preventing article creation, but when the offensive title is a plausible search term (and given that people keep creating articles at titles like this it clearly is) then it is significantly preferable to protect the title as a redirect (as people are taken to neutral content about the topic they are looking for) rather than salting (where we tell them we have no relevant content and they have to get lucky with search results, which may be several clicks/taps away). Salting is appropriate for repeatedly recreated titles that are nonsense and/or unrelated to encyclopaedic topics, which is not the case here. While the IP editor's views cannot be considered in this topic area, they are relevant, appropriate and appear to have been made in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per AfD discussion; the redirect is superfluous and potentially POV. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Superfluous" is never a reason to delete a redirect, and per WP:RNEUTRAL being "potentially" POV is not relevant. What matters is whether this is a plausible search term, and it is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last shot at finding consensus. Noting also that the redirect is extendedconfirmed-protected and has been since 26 November.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Seems the page protection was a remnant of the page being moved, being leftover when the page moved. Not sure how relevant that is to the current situation. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: I mentioned it because there was unresolved discussion above about salting vs. protection vs. nothing, and I wanted to clarify the current state of the page. FWIW the ARBECR-based protection is still procedurally valid. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was more of less meaning that when a page is moved, the leftover redirect is granted the same protection level which the page which moved from it had at the time the page was moved. In cases such as page move vandalism, this can create an unsuitable situation where a redirect has a level of protection that it really should not. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the redirect discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The recent move was a positive one in that the new title fits our naming criteria better. I am not convinced the old name has major NPOV problems, though. "Martyrdom" is POV too, and most of the time when a death is framed as martyrdom, it is done so in a positive way, so "glorification" seems only redundant, not a further NPOV violation. Finally, though the article is new, this was the page title from creation.

All that said, I have no objection to tagging with {{R from non-neutral name}}, given others' concerns. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 31 January 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 💬 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ten Words of Wisdom → Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not allowed on Wikipedia?  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Eleven Words of Wisdom → Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not allowed on Wikipedia?  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page never mentions Ten Words of Wisdom (TWOW) and Eleven Words of Wisdom (EWOW), potentially creating confusion over missing information about TWOW/EWOW. Yes, the two were made by the same person who made Battle for Dream Island (BFDI). However, BFDI and TWOW/EWOW are completely different shows, so it wouldn't make much sense to redirect TWOW/EWOW to a project page that is substantially about BFDI. Also, both of these redirects barely have any viewership and have no incoming links (aside from this RfD) since their creation. AlphaBeta135talk 19:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we have no encyclopedic information about this topic on Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:54, 21 January 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 speedily deleted per criterion G7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Stamford Bridge (stadium\ → Stamford Bridge (stadium)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Similarly to the other request, this is the only redirect on Wikipedia constructed with a "(" and a "\", the backslash to the other's forward slash. No incoming links for either, both have received zero pageviews in the last month, and there doesn't seem to be a need to break convention for this unlikely search term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although its existed since 2013 its always been a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — no need to immortalize my typos. Trivialist (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no articles have that link so not needed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:56, 21 January 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 00:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Terminal value (philosophy/ → Instrumental and intrinsic value  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the only redirect on wikipedia that is constructed with a "(" to begin and a "/" to end. Apparently there "is an external link that points here", but to my understanding there is no context beyond that, and Wikipedia should not be responsible for accommodating the entire internet's incoming typos, as this is not a plausible search term in any capacity. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although its existed since 2018 its always been a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:35, 28 January 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 speedy delete. Closed as speedy delete under G6 by Explicit. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch （Characters） → List of Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely redirect due to the use of the characters " （" and "）", which makes this redirect WP:MIXEDSCRIPT since they are not used in standard English keyboards and the rest of the words/characters in this redirect utilize alphabetical characters. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it was at this title for a few hours in 2008. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this too, ope. Didn't think to check for the usage of the WP:MIXEDSCRIPT character before AND after the disambiguation, thanks for catching! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Utopes: I think I meant WP:MIXEDSCRIPT, not WP:FORRED, but it is possible that both apply. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for that, I was just echoing the sentiment from the other nomination as I still couldn't believe I didn't think to check the general case too 😅. Forgot that mixedscript and forred were different links; I think you're right about this being the former, as the language is still in English and therefore that part is all good, but the punctuation is borrowed from a non-English character set, hence mixed script. Thanks for the tip! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per above. Also, it fails the name format for a list of characters. The original creator must have been using an IME or on mobile with a secondary keyboard layout since those parentheses are impossible to type in with a standard US or European keyboard layout. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs

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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chen Mingyi (Taiwan） → Chen Ming-yi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jidi(Illustrator） → Jidi (cartoonist)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Profiteer (Daoye） → Profiteer (Daoye)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Soso (search engine） → Soso (search engine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The character at the end of these redirects are not parenthesis. These are the only four instances where this happens across all of Wikipedia. None of these cases are likely to be typed with the special full-width punctuation at the end. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:RDAB and, surprisingly, WP:FORRED/WP:MIXEDSCRIPT. So, apparently, the "）" character has affinity to/is a Chinese character, making all these redirects mixed script/language and thus highly unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, looks as though the character "（" exists as well. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh, that's odd. Delete all. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2nd, it was at this title for a few hours in 2014. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons stated above. Trivialist (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Good catch. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not going to rule out some redirects with full-width parentheses having value (although I can't think of any ottomh where they are the only full-width characters). The only situation I can think of where a mix of standard and full-width parentheses makes sense in a title is for an article about the different types of parentheses. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 22 January 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 💬 16:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ford Excuse → The Rush Limbaugh Show  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no content at the target article related to "Ford Excuse." All I was able to find in a search on the phrase is that it must have been a Paul Shanklin parody of some sort. Whatever it was, it doesn't appear to be well-remembered so I see no use in having this title redirect to a page it isn't mentioned on. --Sable232 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The only detail of the ad I can find is someone recreating it using Lego, everything else in google hits is unrelated (most commonly they relate to Gerald Ford and the Watergate scandal, but nothing specific even approaches being primary topic). Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 22 January 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 12:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• U.S. Route 93 in Alberta → Alberta Highway 93  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 93 in British Columbia → British Columbia Highway 93  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 95 in British Columbia → British Columbia Highway 95  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 97 in British Columbia → British Columbia Highway 97  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 99 in British Columbia → British Columbia Highway 99  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 83 in Manitoba → Manitoba Highway 83  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 83 (Manitoba) → Manitoba Highway 83  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 93 (Alberta) → Alberta Highway 93  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 93 (British Columbia) → British Columbia Highway 93  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 95 (British Columbia) → British Columbia Highway 95  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 97 (British Columbia) → British Columbia Highway 97  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Route 99 (British Columbia) → British Columbia Highway 99  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems unlikely to be a plausible redirect, and a bit silly to have a US highway entry for a province in Canada. These were two separate highways that just happened to share a number across the border. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've bundled all these nominations with the same rationale. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Ha! You did it just as I was doing so. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, but I've taken it one step further and bundled in the rest of the redirects that were created at the same time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks a lot! Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, more JBIGW silliness. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget 97 to U.S. Route 97#Proposed Alaska expansion, where the idea of US Route 97 extending into Canada (and then Alaska) is discussed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, US Route 97 would not have extended into Canada. The number would be extended into Canada, but not as a US Route. It'd be British Columbia Highway 97 (which was renumbered to match the US Route) and Yukon Highway 1 (which was not). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's one interpretation. It would be IMO just as reasonable to think of US 97 in that hypothetical situation as continuing through Canada. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a reasonable interpretation. US Routes by definition cannot continue through Canada. US and Canada are separate sovereignties, so that's jurisdictionally nonsensical. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible. I can't see how anyone would expect a U.S. highway to be designated in Canada, so these are silly at best - potentially misleading. --Sable232 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How exactly are these misleading? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The titles imply that U.S. highways extend into and are posted in Canada, which is not the case. --Sable232 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 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 Tara (Drina). (non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reka Tara → Tara (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Foreign language natural disambiguation, unlikely ever to be useful to the average English reader Joy (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Tara (Drina). This is the native name of that river, and the overwhelming primary topic for the exact term on Google results. Add a hatnote to the Russian river or the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We seem to have reka Dunav since 2019, but no reka Sava, reka Drina, reka Bosna or any number of other more plausible ones for the more commonly known rivers from that area, so this seems excessive. --Joy (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So? Please explain why other redirects (not) existing is at all relevant here? Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it's an indication that we can't typically entice English editors to make these, which is an indication that the English readers don't need it. Besides, the word is in Latin and capitalized, so the average English reader will recognize that if the search for the phrase fails, they can just search for the proper name part, find it in the disambiguation page, recognize it by English caption, and be done with it. The idea that anyone really needs this seems contrived to me. --Joy (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with nom. I don't find any English sources from Google. If I force Google to give me English results, I seem to get nothing. If "Reka" means river, we don't have an article about it on enwiki. At Reka (river) it says "Reka" is literally river in Slovene. Does the language have affinity to the region where the Tara flows - Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina? Jay 💬 21:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. So the idea would be probably something like a situation where an English reader finds the whole term signposted somewhere, and enters the whole term in the English Wikipedia search box, that they navigate quickly as opposed to having to navigate as you normally do. A lot of toponymy could be done like that, and I don't know that we generally do that. --Joy (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Tara (Drina) per Thryduulf. Google Translate's "detect language" returns this as Māori, but Wiktionary confirms it as Serbo-Croatian. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 30 January 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 Tara (Drina). (non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 07:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rijeka Tara → Tara (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Foreign language natural disambiguation, unlikely ever to be useful to the average English reader Joy (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Tara (Drina) as the native name of that river, and only that river. Native names are almost always plausible search terms per WP:RFOREIGN. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When we don't have rijeka Dunav, rijeka Sava, rijeka Drina, rijeka Bosna or any number of other more plausible ones for the more commonly known rivers from that area, this seems excessive. --Joy (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant here. Just because some other redirects don't exist says nothing about the usefulness of this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As above, it's an indication that we can't typically entice English editors to make these, which is an indication that the English readers don't have any use for it. Besides, the word is in Latin and capitalized, so the average English reader will recognize that if the search for the phrase fails, they can just search for the proper name part, find it in the disambiguation page, recognize it by English caption, and be done with it. The idea that anyone really needs this seems contrived to me. (We might as well merge the two discussions, the only reason they started separate is the default behavior of the RFD-filing software I used.) --Joy (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Tara (Drina) per Thryduulf. This is Serbo-Croatian, so it passes the WP:RLOTE test. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 30 January 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 disambiguate the first, retarget the (new) second there. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Color symmetry → Color charge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Colour symmetry → Color charge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current redirect from Color symmetry to Color charge is outdated. I suggest replacing it with a Color symmetry disambiguation page constructed as follows:

Moved to Color symmetry

 – I copied GreatStellatedDodecahedron's draft as is. Jay 💬 14:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: I was trying to avoid that per WP:CWW. My original plan was to tell the nominator to create Color symmetry (disambiguation) and then close this discussion and create a WP:RM, but eh tweaked this discussion instead. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: :@Steel1943:I created the disambiguation page as suggested by Steel1943. Please can either Steel1943 or Jay 💬 delete the redirect and close this discussion?GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943 mentioned the the disambiguated page title as the "original plan". It is not needed now, and it may be retargeted to Color symmetry. Jay 💬 12:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Colour symmetry doesn't exist. It should be created and point to (the same target as) Color symmetry when this discussion is closed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Colour symmetry has been created as a redirect towards the current target of Color symmetry, and added to the nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 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. Jay 💬 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arena metal → Arena rock  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

non-existent term. google shows zero results related to music FMSky (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: examples here, here, here, here, and (hyphenated) here. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes this related to arena rock? --FMSky (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a form of commercial rock music aimed at a mass live audience. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the mentions in reliable sources brought up by Jean-de-Nivelle. FMSky, if you have concerns about the connection between the terms arena metal and arena rock, the Guardian article linked above contains the following comment: "Still much heavier and more overtly metallic than their modern arena-rock peers ...", which implies that the writer is using the term arena metal to mean a variety of arena rock music, much like metal itself is a subgenre of rock music. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright then 👍 -FMSky (talk) 06:55, 21 January 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).