Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17

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. After nearly 2 months of discussion, and multiple relists, there is still not clear consensus as to what should be done with this redirect. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Neverwinter Nights characters → Neverwinter Nights  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no such "list of characters" at the target article. The only character that is EVER mentioned at the target, is the unnamed "player character", and one mention of a "King of Shadows" in passing. Was created as a result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters AfD. Nevertheless, this is not a helpful redirect in its current form. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore the content underneath (deleted edits from prior to 2016) so that a proper character list can be created at the target article. 2016 is the bad old days when non-notable stuff was deleted before redirection, even though ATD policy was still the same, we didn't always do it right. Also, naming convention is pretty standard--if you're cleaning up problematic/confusing redirects, this ain't one of them. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreeing with Clemens somewhat. While the list itself is very unlikely to ever be revived, it serves as a record and and helps link to the AfD discussion that took place, which also has a list of potential sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll reproduce here what I wrote on my talk page: The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters was to delete and redirect, not only to redirect. Undeleting the deleted content would be contrary to the AfD outcome. It would need overturning the AfD closure, which would need to be done at DRV, not here. What's more, I can't even find deleted content to undelete. The deletion log indicates some sort of technical issue in 2016. Sandstein 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this should be kept: a) For historical reasons. b) It's just the next best thing we have. There are hits, an people are redirected there, showing what little we have and that we don't have a separate article. c) That's where new content would be added. And there is such content! I can't say if there's enough to establish notability and could change the outcome in a deletion review, but there's more than during the time of the deletion discussion. Examples would be his Kotaku article or this book, p. 20-21. I'd like to add such commentary, but I have too much on my plate already. Daranios (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restore the content under the redirect, as per Jclemens; the contents of the old list are now at User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters so they can be moved back to article space. A short list can be merged into the main article until it can be spun back out again. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not clear to me how this got to my userspace. 2016 was after I'd was no longer an admin. Did I request restoration in the past and then forgot about it, or did someone just do this? Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You may have asked me to do that as I was still an admin at that time. BOZ (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an old redirect with history, and I honestly believe said history should be restored if possible, even if only to the history of this redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This redirect is not old (2016 from a recent-ish AfD), and does not contain any valuable history. This RfD turnout is quite surprising all within a few minutes tbh. There is still NO characters at the target article, so the redirect is still misleading and this has not been remedied. All the history is in userspace which can be reinstated when it is ready. Does not need a misleading "list" redirect in the meantime. Sources can be copied to the Neverwinter Nights talk page, or grabbed from the AfD directly. We don't do redirects for the "next best thing we have", when we actually have nothing. The only thing that needed to be true for this redirect was to have "characters listed", and Neverwinter Nights does not even manage this in its current state. Articles don't need to exist as a redirect just to indicate where content "should" be added. In fact the opposite is true per WP:REDYES. There is no such content on Wikipedia for this topic at this moment. The only possibility would be to delete List of Neverwinter Nights characters (the replacement created by Sandstein), and move in the material from User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters to the same title, if consensus indicates material should be held here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  8 years is not old? I understand it's not from the 200x's, but 8 years is still a pretty long time... Fieari (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom., there is no list. The redirect is somewhat misleading and not helpful. Neverwinter Nights is the obvious search term, and if someone did, for some reason, search on this full name they would be better served with this list of results [1] rather than being jumped to a page that has no list. A case of a redirect actually making things worse. Old content is userfied and can be developed, so that consideration is moot. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, if without prejudice to recreating if usable sources are found. list not present. i think misleading readers would do more harm than losing track of an afd thread in a mainspace page's edit history. even then, deletion would most likely link people attempting to recreate it to this discussion, which in turn links to that discussion, so... cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do redirects need sources? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it refers to sources at the target article, to substantiate a mention of multiple characters and allow readers to receive sourced content, when it is specified in the search bar (via this redirect) that the reader SPECIFICALLY wants a "list of characters", one that we don't have anywhere in mainspace, nor any sources for. Redirects do need to be "reliably sourceable", because all material in mainspace must be verifiable, and redirects are material, and redirects are in mainspace. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should indeed have a list of characters at the target, but the content is already available even if not in that page currently. No, redirects don't need to be reliably sourced, per WP:RPURPOSE. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPURPOSE is a guideline; WP:V is policy. Redirects too must be verifiable. Alternate spellings can be verified by WP:COMMONSENSE. What reason-for-maintaining bullet point does this redirect (a redirect indicating a "list of characters") meet on WP:RPURPOSE? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since COMMONSENSE can satisfy V, then, V's not really an issue, is it? Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a patently wrong misreading of that policy. It is claims that must be verifiable. Redirects are not claims. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i said i'd have no prejudice against recreation if sources could be found cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 10:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't explain why deleting a redirect to a notable work of fiction would be influenced in any way by sourcing--presumably, non-primary sourcing--for a set of elements that meet WP:CSC clause 2. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources out there which would allow to include some commentary on characters as a group and individually into the target, but which have not yet been employed. Like [2] or [3]. Or, from a very different angle, an analytical comment on player characters on Dungeons, Dragons, and Digital Denizens, p. 20-21. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included a rudimentary listing of characters in the Reception section, with potential for expansion based on said secondary sources, which I hope solves the gravest misgivings of Utopes and cogsan. Based on this I'd argue for the inclusion of the old, userfied page into the history of the redirect, as it could be used as a basis to search for more secondary sources, if someone should desire to do so. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think some examples in the reception section would count as enough to warrant a list redirect, so i guess my vote stays for the moment, with equally little prejudice against recreation cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan: So what in your view is still lacking for such a redirect to be justified? Number of characters? Description/commentary? Presentation in bulletpoint form or some such? Daranios (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what i think is missing is a list. "list of knives" probably shouldn't link to an article that only mentions santoku and bread knives, as an example. also as an example, characters of deltarune and that other game doesn't mention every character (where's lemon bread?), but it does have a good handful

so yeah, "number of characters" is the closest to my answer among the options provided, and if reliable sources only seem to cover three of them in any level of detail, i'd say press the big ol' return to red button cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan: Thanks. WP:RETURNTORED starts with "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article". It might, but though it pains me to say, the last AfD dedided that it did not have the potential to be expandied into its own article then. So do you still not like the redirect even though to my knowledge there is no other article which would cover even the four/five characters we have at the target now? Or to look at it from the other direction, what would be the number for characters you would see as the minimum for an embedded list to not want to delete our redirect? Daranios (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem here? Red link or redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD by finding sources that allow a new list article to be written, then you can just do that! Retaining this redirect doesn't help. The redirect does not have the old article history, so that argument for keeping it is moot. The old article history is available and userfied, so you have that. You are arguing like this is AfD but the only consideration is whether this is a useful redirect. On that score, it clearly isn't. There are at least nine articles that show up in search if you look for Neverwinter Nights [4]. Now if someone is looking for a list of Neverwinter nights characters, the redirect chooses to send them to one of these pages and ignore the others. The reader is taken to a page that does not list the characters, and does not meet their information requirement. If anyone were actually interested in all of the characters, they are better off seeing all nine articles listed, which will give them a fuller picture, rather than being taken to a page that does not answer their information requirement but pretends to. I just do not see what the benefit is of retaining a redirect that has no history and no utility. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't the fact that it was deemed that there weren't enough sources for an article then, and that that's still the case now, be more reason to delete?

i have some level of hope that it might be possible to create that list someday, i just know that that's not today cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am not sure if I could disprove the AfD in the form of establishing this as a notable topic, and I don't currently have the time (or rather priority based on many other open to-do ideas) to make sure one way or another. And that is not the issue. (I'd be for restoring the userfied history as I said. But the history I was originally referring to was the link to the deletion discussion in the talk page.) I am pretty sure that I could create an embedded list, and for that it would be useful to know opinions how (big) such a list should look to make sense. Just as one project utilizing secondary sources on this topic which have not been (fully) used yet. On the other hand, the AfD did establish this redirect, so redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD does not make sense to me. Rather, deleting the redirect would mean overturning the AfD result. But I guess that's within the prerogative of RfD. Looking at the other hits again I am no longer completely sure if it is best to guide the reader to Neverwinter Nights at this point. We do have five characters there currently, and overall commentary, and it fits better to the redirect title. But other hits do have several characters embedded, too. So withdrawing my keep !vote for the time being, but I am still interested in cogsan's answer to my question above. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is on a case-by-case basis, so the best way to put it is

• general franchises: at least most of the major cast being notable, with some wiggle room for a handful of more important/popular yet not very notable ones
• general franchises that are really long: if they're not known for more than one character, just go for articles for the few notable ones. otherwise, same criteria seem to apply
• novels and other such character-heavy franchises (which nn seems to be): there's usually no plan b for if not enough of them are notable for a list, so to quote a wise scorpion, "lol. lmao."
• pokémon: the best way to describe the situation with pokémon and its (human) characters, and how rules related to notability are treated in its context, is doing multiple backflips in a row to distract people from the question while professor elm keeps his entry

it's a complicated case, but it seems neverwinter nights just plain doesn't have enough notable characters in the first place, "major" or not

and granted, this is for if such a list exists in the first place, and since the answer to that in this case is "not anymore lol", it's really just a matter of deleting and hoping the case changes sometime before the sun goes boom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pinging Mark viking, who had suggested the redirect back at the AfD. Daranios (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete RfD does not have any authority over article content. We had an AfD, which does have that authority, and declared this should be banished. Now it's time for it to meet its fate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was the AfD which made this a redirect in the first place. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it appears no one wants to close this as it can't be relisted, and has 4 keeps and 4 deletes. I !voted so can't close it, but I would point out that the keep !votes were all obtained in the first 24 hours or so of listing, and that all delete !votes (other than the nom.) followed later. Also that a fifth keep was struck after engagement in the discussion. Discussions are not a vote, and a straight vote count may be giving an erroneous impression of this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm surprised this is still going on a month later. I still feel we would be best served to have the content moved back and kept, but if consensus is going to go to delete, then the old content is still WP:PRESERVED in the user page that I originally noted above. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is no list at the target, or anywhere else. Thanks to Daranios for the additions; the 3 characters do not make the list though. Jclemens may move his userfied page to Neverwinter Nights characters, and turn that to a redirect for future revival. Jay 💬 18:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – this redirect falsely implies the existence of a list, so it annoys readers. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are a few characters listed in prose format, which is good enough for me. Thanks to Daranios for putting in the effort to try to save this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:12, 21 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 05:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative → Miscellaneous left  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned at target article. Ironically, when searching this term on the internet, the article for Eco-socialism popped up. LR.127 (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be a non-notable political party and really not much room for a mention. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:53, 25 November 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 Greater Luxembourg, No Consensus on the others. Any concerns and discussion regarding the entries in the disambiguation page may continue beyond this RfD. Jay 💬 22:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Greater Luxembourg → Greater Region of SaarLorLux  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Greater Luxembourg (modern region) → Greater Region of SaarLorLux  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Greater Region of Luxembourg → Greater Region of SaarLorLux  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete all three.Retarget to Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War. This Euroregion is never referred to as "Greater Luxembourg". РоманЖ (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Journal of Contemporary European Studies and Organic policies in Luxembourg do talk about a Greater Luxembourg area. The second link also has a map which largely matches the map in Greater Region of SaarLorLux. A mention of the first term needs to be added to the target. The other two are acceptable variants. Retargeting to Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War (per the nom's updated recommendation) also seems like a good-enough option. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly redirect to Luxembourg. The thing very definitely exists, see, for example [5] (there are dozens of solid peer-reviewed works using the term). According to this source, the Greater Luxembourg includes "partly derelict French periphery benefiting from the economic spillover of Luxembourg". Having once made an (accidental) stop there, I can vouch for the description. Whether this description matches the Greater Region of SaarLorLux, I do not know (the SaarLorLux seems much larger than what the works describing the Greater Luxembourg imply). Викидим (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War for some historical background of the term. Викидим (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MPGuy2824, Викидим, I updated my proposal. I think now that it is better to retarget to Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War. РоманЖ (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a modern concept as well. It draws a lot of interest among researchers as, I think, the largest (in terms of interaction) trans-border conglomeration in the EU. While not formal, like Greater London or Grand Paris, it seems notable on its own, perhaps, in the future it will have its own article. For now, I think that a section either in SaarLorLux or Luxembourg would do IMHO. Викидим (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Closest equivalent is IMHO Paris metropolitan area. Викидим (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per MPGuy. This is a solution in search of a problem. Whether or not strictly accurate, the term "Greater Region of Luxembourg" is widely used in reliable published academic source (1, 2). As for "Greater Luxembourg", this is also a commonly used term. Ernst & Young offer accountancy services for for "Greater Luxembourg" (3). So too does the UN (4) and the Lux government (5, "Given the important role of Luxembourg in the ‘greater Luxembourg’ labour market, the department could usefully explore funding opportunities in neighbouring regions..."). This is a very small selection. Where exactly is the problem with the current situation? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Brigade Piron although I agree with you regarding the 'Greater Region of Luxembourg', I still think that when a reader searches for 'Greater Luxembourg', they are more likely looking for information on Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War. РоманЖ (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it seems like a consensus to Keep, some participants are also saying they'd be okay with Retargeting so I'm going to relist this discussion to come to a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate at least the first one. Two redirect targets are discussed above. I am not convinced it's a common term for SaarLorLux, most examples given here do not actually use the full term (they just call it the "Greater region"). The annexation target has some plausibility. However, not mentioned above, the natural target that comes to my mind is the historical Duchy of Luxembourg, which through the Partitions of Luxembourg created the current smaller borders. The term might even refer to Luxembourg (Belgium), which is greater (bigger). The latter two may more specifically refer to SaarLorLux, but that is because they are more specific than the more general term. CMD (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support disambiguate proposal. @Brigade Piron@MPGuy2824@Викидим: what do you think? I created Draft:Greater Luxembourg. РоманЖ (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support both the disambiguation proposal (for all three variants) and the draft itself. We should not encourage editors to use link to Greater Luxembourg without a clarification: multiple context-dependent meanings are quite clear by now, and he DAB is a standard way to resolve the issue. Викидим (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm still opposed. After having boldy but wrongly asserted that the region is "never" referred to as Greater Luxembourg, they have still to provide any evidence that it is used to refer to any of the other three other items now proposed for disambiguation. Several of these seem very suspect. Can we have some evidence that this is not simply WP:OR, please? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I am trying is to avoid splitting hairs here. The very fact of this discussion confirms IMHO that a reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would be quite likely confused if a result of clicking on a blue link Greater Luxembourg would bring him to a particular page (regardless of context) so it should point to a DAB to force editors to disambiguate such links according to the context. I am less opinionated about the other two redirects (since a typical editor among the ones that I have seen usually proceeds with caution before adding a wikilink with disambiguation, thus misdirection problems are less likely). If reaching a consensus requires me to abandon my stance of pointing the "modern region" redirect to the DAB as well, feel free to disregard my request WRT to the second and third redirects. Викидим (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron which of these items (Duchy of Luxembourg, Luxembourg (Belgium), and Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War) cannot be found in sources referring to "Greater Luxembourg"? When I google, I see "Greater Luxembourg" associated with the Duchy of Luxembourg and Luxembourg in Belgium. I have not found any references linking "Greater Luxembourg" to the annexation plans after the Second World War. Despite this, based on the discussion above, I have tentatively included it in the draft of the disambiguation page. РоманЖ (talk) 11:42, 25 November 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 questioned document examination * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Handwriting expert → Graphology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would think that the modern primary meaning of "handwriting expert" would be the person who scientifically examines handwriting to determine authorship, not the pseudoscientific person who analysis handwriting to divine personality characteristics. I am on the fence about whether this should be retargeted to Graphanalysis, or disambiguated. BD2412 T 16:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. I think I'd lean toward retargeting to Forensic handwriting examination, which is already a dab page with a couple potential entries, but I don't feel super strongly about it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An expert is not an examination, though, and Graphology (which should be mentioned on a disambiguation page for the nominated term) is not forensic. BD2412 T 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Questioned document examination as avoiding double redirect from Graphanalysis, which has a hatnote to Graphology. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it definitely shouldn't go to Graphology, that's for sure. I think Forensic handwriting examination is probably the best retarget, since that will also aim readers at palaeography and diplomatics, two other kinds of handwriting expertise. Disclosure: I have no idea if this counts as a COI, lol. -- asilvering (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Questioned document examination per the above comments. 5Q5|^✉ 10:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• When I looked at Questioned document examination, I saw it as a poor but better target than the current. Then when I looked at Forensic handwriting examination, not only did it have Questioned document examination as an entry, but two other terms that could explore the reader's horizons. It is an oddly crafted disambig page, but in the absence of an article about the "Handwriting expert", let's give the reader the maximum. I understand "examination" here does not have the meaning of "test", but of "examining" which is what an expert would do. Jay 💬 12:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With nom's new dab below, the Forensic handwriting examination dab gets duplicated. The Palaeography or Diplomatics articles do not appear to be related to forensics. Forensic handwriting examination can be made a redirect to Questioned document examination instead. Jay 💬 15:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have created a disambiguation page at Handwriting expertise, which captures some additional senses. However, I am coming around to the idea that Questioned document examination is likely the primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 15:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:01, 17 November 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. asilvering (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dana Fuller → Dana Fuller Ross  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: "Dana Fuller Ross" was a pseudonym not shortened to "Dana Fuller". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dana Fuller Ross does not mention notability, has no references. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update' someone converted the target Dana Fuller Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a disambiguation page -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom converted the target dab to a stub just before making this nomination. IP wanted it to go back to dab, and there was an edit war. Both were reverted and we now have the status quo, before the nom's conversion. Keep as {{R from incomplete dab}} unless we see more action. Jay 💬 12:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No evidence that "Dana Fuller" on its own is commonly used to refer to either person listed on the DAB page. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Presidentman. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:03, 29 November 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...} 04:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital → Bagram Airfield  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Craig Joint Theater Hospital → Bagram Airfield  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Craig" or "Theater" at the target article. This redirect is tagged as having possibilities, but such possibilities are closer to impossible if this redirect is a blue link and pointing at a title where the hospital is not discussed. Is mentioned on 3 pages: List of hospitals in Afghanistan, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing, and Advanced cardiac life support. Unsure if any of these are truly ideal, however, or if WP:REDYES would apply. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For what it's worth, for most of its life (since 2010), the redirect actually pointed to a section discussing the hospital in the Bagram Airfield article, until the section was removed in Special:Diff/1032112406 in 2021. I'm frankly not sure whether the section should have been removed under the reasoning that was given. – Recoil16 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If relisted, should be bundled with Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with the other similar redirect as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added back the section mentioned by Recoil16, but retained only the sourced content. I have retained the present tense phrasing although the status of the hospital is unclear after the takeover by Taliban in 2021. But we'll be consistent with the lede which mentions in the present tense:There is also a hospital with 50 beds, three operating theatres and a modern dental clinic. That line cites a July 2021 source whereas the Taliban took over the following month, hence it is the target article that is in need of repair Jay 💬 13:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is now in the article. The only two key words are "Craig" and "Hospital", looking for Theatre wouldn't necessarily turn up the facility, since it means "area"/"region"/"theater of military command". Joint is the same, just meaning multiple branches of the U.S. military share use of it. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 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. After more than two months of discussion, there is clear support for deletion, and no consensus among those not favoring deletion of where this should point. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Username policy → Wikipedia:Username policy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• User name policy → User (computing)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My question with XNRs to projectspace is always, "Is it plausible that someone would be looking for this internal page while new enough to not know what namespaces are?" Given that for many people creating a username is the first step in contributing to Wikipedia, I find the answer in this case an emphatic yes. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Username policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to User (computing)#Username format. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That section provides a bit of info on operation system restrictions for usernames. A username policy is generally about rules enacted by an organization about usernames (thus is at the discretion of the organization and not solely due to technical limitations). isaacl (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a Wikipedia specific term as other websites have username policies and there could be other uses that don't involve computers etc where usernames have policies. Also User (computing)#Username format doesn't appear to discuss policies so it probably not a good target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. There is so much material that could be built about controversial username policies for social media and accounts allowed by corporations. There's the unreasonable name length bans for users of various services that appear in the news now and then, about people with long names or short names, not allowed names, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Pppery. That page already has a hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Username policy. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to User (computing)#Username format. Seems right to me. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Tamzin on this one, the username policy trips up so many new users that I think having an XNR is more helpful than harmful. Legoktm (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that User name policy that was created in 2006, has targeted User (computing) since 2007. Any outcome would need to be consistent. Jay 💬 18:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added User name policy to this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to User (computing)#Username format and move the article hatnote to the section, with a better explanation of why WP:USERNAME is linked, so that those users who are as of yet unfamiliar with namespaces can find what they are looking for. The current hatnote is insufficiently explanatory, and if I was confused and looking for the wikipedia username policy I doubt I'd understand the current wording. Fieari (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP's username policy is already displayed prominently when creating a new account, so saying that new users need this so badly as to justify an XNR is nonsense. And the retarget proposal immediately above is equally bad, since it doesn't talk about any sort of policies, just a couple specific examples for Windows only, not the general concept, which is wayyyy more general than even any operating system. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, per Tamzin. It is an entry-level thing. And as Legoktm says, it could be confusing. But perhaps the search prompt should be something like "Username policy (Wikipedia)", in which case this one should be retargeted as suggested. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tamzin et al. I don't feel it has plausible uses outside of Wikipedia space. JayCubby 17:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per isaacl. Readers before editors. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:43, 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 no consensus. I'll defer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma Squeeze and restore the section. Please feel free to clarify or tag anything that may seem confusing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gamma Squeeze → Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Gamma squeeze → Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Either delete the redir or fix the content of the redir target article. The Short squeeze article currently has no mention of "gamma" or "gamma squeeze" whatsoever. N2e (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Fixed nomination which was malformed. @N2e: You need to place the nomination template below the html line for it to work properly. I've fixed this now. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the redirection is a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma Squeeze so this isn't a BLAR situation. Thryduulf (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Also bundle Gamma Squeeze into this. Jay 💬 17:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with "Gamma Squeeze" as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The removal diff at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_squeeze&diff=prev&oldid=1075503817 looks difficult to distinguish from vandalism. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot say, but I would not put the removed content back as it was unsourced and hard (for me) to understand. The stock market is complex, but that first paragraph was incredibly hard. The sourced content about Gamma squeeze also didn't seem to be related to the source, so ultimately it is the maintainers of the target article who have to decide. As the redirect has history and an AfD that favoured merge, restore and tag for merge. Jay 💬 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfD doesn't have the authority to do that - it would be overturning an AfD outcome out of process. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? RfD overturns a lot of AfD redirect outcomes. And this particular case is not about overturning, it is helping the AfD outcome by going through the process of merge-and-redirect. When an article is tagged with "merge-to", its status becomes temporary until the merge is complete. Jay 💬 08:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfD overturns a lot of AfD redirect outcomes -> huh? If an AfD closes as redirect then AfD is declaring that the content shouldn't be an article. AfD doesn't have the authority to declare something should exist as a redirect, so it's not overturning that outcome for RfD to say it shouldn't, and therefore delete. It is overturning to, even temporarily, return that content to an article. And the {{merge}} and even {{Afd-merge to}} backlogs are months long so "temporary" is wishful.

Our options here are either to revert that edit, do the merge ourselves (which is a bold action that doesn't derive any authority from this discussion), or delete as not mentioned. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:26, 27 November 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. Jay 💬 16:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Stars War → Star Wars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pretty implausible misspelling/typo TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think we should necessarily assume that this could only be a typo or misspelling. In the literal sense, a "stars war" is just a war in the stars, and I think that Star Wars would probably be the most notable example of this. Even as a misspelling or misremembering of the franchise name, it doesn't seem especially implausible, either. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Drop a proton torpedo into its thermal exhaust port. Utterly useless for probably the most well known sci-fi franchise ever, while an external search finds other things actually named this. Give people a little credit. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Stars War" is a Warcraft tournament that has been running since 2005, so this redirect is incorrect. While it also could reasonably be a mistaken name for Star Wars, I don't think targetting it is correct as anyone looking for the tournament would be wp:astonished BugGhost🦗👻 07:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michael Aurel. I've never thought about that, but "Stars War" (multiple stars, one war) does fit better thematically than Star Wars (one star, multiple wars). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are actual uses of this, and anyone correctly entering it does not want star wars, which they probably already know how to type correctly. Correct uses (except in extreme cases) take precedence over incorrect uses. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really don't see how this is implausible, and I know it isn't, because it has 20 page views in the past thirty days. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to expand on this. The other people here are saying about there being "other things named that", they aren't anything notable, and I don't expect anyone to search for them here. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't feel like a plausible typo to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:50, 25 November 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. Radio-Canada (disambiguation) was created for this purpose. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Radio-Canada → Canadian Broadcasting Corporation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Make disambiguation page instead. While the CBC is known in French as "Radio-Canada", the term in English most commonly refers to Ici Radio-Canada Télé or Ici Radio-Canada Première, its two main broadcast services. A look at the incoming links to Radio-Canada shows that almost all are actually intended for one of these two articles. 162 etc. (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the same arguments at the previous RfD, the current target was deemed the primary topic. [Disclosure: previous RfD closer] Jay 💬 07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a French-English dictionary. No English-language reliable sources refer to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as "Radio-Canada". However, they do use "Radio-Canada" to refer to the TV or radio networks.[6][7] 162 etc. (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per prior RfD, this is the best target to cover the options, including the international radio broadcaster. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per my previous arguments. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean disambiguate. I previously !voted to keep the redirect, but 162 is right to bring this up again as the state of how editors are using the redirect wasn't discussed in the previous RfD. I went through a small sample of article links and there is clearly a misalignment between what editors think Radio-Canada points to and what it actually does. I wouldn't say that 'almost all' editors intend to link to French-language media services rather than the company entity, though, it's clearly a common intention. I still believe that landing at Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is unsurprising for Radio-Canada, but a DAB page may useful in constructing better and consistent inter-article links. Disambiguating Radio-Canada would be a net positive if creating hundreds of article links to a DAB page is in itself OK, I know it is discouraged. Also note that Radio-Canada shows up as a link in References sections, and I am unsure if that is automatically generated. This would need to be addressed as well. ― Synpath 21:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone feel like drafting a disambiguation page? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  162 etc. made the page Radio-Canada (disambiguation), and it is seeing use over the past 20 days. Perhaps traffic is arriving from the hatnote at Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but WikiNav doesn't have stats for November 2024 yet. ― Synpath 21:10, 1 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 to delete. (non-admin closure) C F A 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite web → Template:Cite web  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

So apparently, this redirect existed way before User:PK2 decided to create a bunch of redirects to other cite templates, which is probably what inspired him to do so. Anyways, the last discussion was over a decade ago so maybe things could go differently this time. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although most Google results are for Wikipedia or other Wikis at least 2 aren't so even if potentially useful its not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR to the pipeworking. Definitely not readership content. Same as with #Cite AV media also nominated today. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I use this all the time (and I have created over 2,300 articles). Previous discussions always conclude that we should WP:Ignore all rules for this one, Cite news, Cite journal, Cite book, and perhaps the others. It had 1000 uses last year. The reasoning is that any shortcut that increases the number and quality of citations on Wikipedia is far more important than consistency, because "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Abductive (reasoning) 09:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IP et. al. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There doesn't seem to be anything in mainspace that "cite web" could be referring to, so as a search term this seems relatively unambiguous; this would seem to indicate that the vast majority of the 78 people who search this monthly are looking for Template:cite web. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not encyclopedic material for the readership, it is explicitly material for the editorship. It should not reside in articlespace. Shortcuts do not reside in articlespace without a pseudonamaespace prefix. This does not use that. If you wanted a shortcut, it should be WP:TCITEWEB or somesuch; keeping akin to WP:CITEWEB ; This is only help for editors, as those wanting to keep it keep indicating, it is for writing Wikipedia, and not audience content. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep In practice I find this exceptionally useful and end up using it all the time. I suspect many others do as well. It does not overlap with any real article called cite web. I totally agree with User:Abductive about 'foolish consistency' and helping to reduce friction. -- GreenC 16:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unambiguous and helpful, anything to help reduce the amount of low quality citations that end up being put in articles is useful. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. We want the encyclopaedia to have more citations, and part of that is that we want to make it easy for editors to add citations. Per others this redirect achieves that aim - and that hasn't changed since the last time this was discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Per Abductive & Thryduulf. I just used it (it's how I got here), and I would have preferred if it worked. I've typed "wp:cite (something)" a hundred times before, though even that doesn't always work on templates. Just keep this task easy. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect does not have "WP:" anything, it is residing in articlespace. Should we just get rid of wP:XNR then, since it would be useful to just create redirects in Articlespace to point to any other namespace for the convenience of editors. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 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. Now mentioned. (non-admin closure) C F A 23:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page does not mention a “Göbenä”. Roasted (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article shows "Гөбенә" -- Gobena -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems it already was in the article,[8] I've since explicitly added it to the Tatar portion -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 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 23:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bighead octopus, → Octopus vitiensis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Comma at the end of the title, appears to be unworthy of a redirect. Bighead octopus (without the comma) already exists so this appears to have been created as a mistake. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UNNATURAL TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, and maybe suggest a csd for misplaced punctuation. really, i'm starting to think x3 needs some reworking to house more than one type of punctuation error cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:X3 might as well be WP:R5 at that point. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete its only existed since August and has always been a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:26, 24 November 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 False positives and false negatives. (non-admin closure) C F A 23:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• True positive → False positives and false negatives#true positive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects to a section that doesn't even exist. TheWikipede^talk 16:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrefine to target the top of the article, where the term is defined. Would match true negative (which I think has an anchor, but I dont view that as necessary). Mdewman6 (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrefine All combinations of true/false and positive/negative are important terms in statistical classification. The true positive and negative are the correct classifications and are not as interesting in a sense as their false counterparts which are the errors in the system. There is another article Sensitivity and specificity that could also be a redirect target, but it makes sense to redirect all or none of these terms to the same article. BFG (talk) 10:58, 18 November 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 deleted per criterion G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hebed → Welsh Archaeological Trusts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I created this page as a redirect to the Welsh Archaeological Trusts, which were amalgamated into Heneb in 2024. But I spelt it wrongly - it is Heneb, not Hebed. Could the page be deleted. I will do a new re-direct. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged under speedy criterion G7 since the author is requesting deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:39, 17 November 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 07:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tucker Turner → Codename: Kids Next Door#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure what this name has to do with Codename: Kids Next Door. Judging by the redirect's history, it was apparently (what someone thought was) an early name for Joey Beetles in the show's production, but other than that, I can't find anything about a "Tucker Turner" in the show (a search on KND Code Module doesn't bring anything up, and a Google search for this exact term brings up a lot of unrelated people). Joseph "Joey", the title this redirect was moved to in 2007 before going to Joseph "Joey" Beetles over a day later, was deleted as the result of an RfD back in 2019, but apparently this one went unnoticed for all these years since then. Delete this unless someone can provide a justification or a suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 07:08, 17 November 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 soft retarget to Wikt:Ultraiectinus. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultrajectine Communion → Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ultrajectine → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The expression is not used anywhere in the articles, so it is a WP:RSURPRISE. The name "Church of Utrecht (Ultrajectine Church)" was previously present at Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), but was removed in 2023 as it was not supported by any source.

"Ultrajectine" is a pseudo-Latin adjective that simply means "of Utrech" (see: wikt:Ultraiectinus), and I did not find any use of this pseudo-Latin word to refer to the city of Utrecht.

Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I can also accept to tetarget to wikt:Ultraiectinus, as a second choice. Veverve (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to wikt:Ultraiectinus Google Scholar shows several uses of this term in old Latin sources but very few in English. I don't think there's enough to say that this is commonly used to refer to the Union of Utrecht in English, but it's possible that someone might come across this term. Redirecting to Wiktionary seems best here given it is more common in Latin sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 00:46, 17 November 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) 03:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Goolge book → Google Books  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Goolge" by itself is somewhat implausible and there is books without the s. I bit too much off from Google Books TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If it stays, the rcat needs a look. The capitalization of "book" is incorrect, sure, but that isn't the main difference between that title and the targeted one. Largoplazo (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely misspelling. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely misspelling. Too many errors. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete It's implausible, as Goolge is a misspelling of Google and is a search engine and not a book. Kolano123 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 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) 03:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

possiblw implauiblw typo TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this redirect. It's getting a decent number of pageviews (e.g., 475 last year, which is equivalent to a little over nine people a week), and plus, theW key is right next to theE key on a standard QWERTY keyboard layout (the high pageviews might possibly be partially due to that layout). Regards, SONIC678 00:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep plausible as an error, as per Sonic678, the exchange of letters of adjacent keys is a quite common category of typo -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Simple typos shouldn't have redirects since they never have any particular WP:AFFINITY to the particular thing being typoed. The number of possible such redirects (with just a single error of a neighboring key press) gets into the billions ...more if you consider other keyboard layouts and other sorts of errors like letter transpositions. Mediawiki's search feature is good enough to suggest "Google" if you type "Googld" (I was going to use "Googlr", but that one exists too; TeapotsOfDoom, I'd recommend adding that to the nomination). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RTYPO. This is a common fat-fingering of "Google". 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  From RTYPO:"This page summarizes the typical outcomes of past RfD discussions for some commonly nominated types of redirects. This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change." Indeed, there are countless other fat fingerings, this one being no more potentially likely than any other, and "google" is no more subject to such typos than any other sequence of keypresses for any other article. And as I also mentioned, the Mediawiki search feature will already list "Google" as its top suggested match, making this even more unneeded. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sonic678. This one clearly gets some use. I don't think WP:AFFINITY applies, if someone types "googlw" it's pretty clear what they're trying to do. You could technically say they might've meant googol, but that's way more implausible. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The point about affinity is that one-letter-off typos have no particular affinity to the word being typoed. There's nothing unique about this particular error for this particular word, and as I mentioned above, the number of such possible redirects (conservatively) numbers in the billions. What makes this one so special? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AFFINITY saysprovided this is not a common mistake or typo regarding that specific word or term, and since the redirect gets more than a pageview a day I'd say that it's a somewhat common typo. WP:AFFINITY is also less about letter-to-letter typos and more about other symbols and added adjectives, so I really don't think it applies here. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kwwp as a kwyboard slip.

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The typo is plausible (since on a typical QWERT keyboard the W and E keys are adjacent) and is evidenced (used more than once a day, per Sonic678). The appeal to WP:AFFINITY doesn't persuade because it includes an exception fora common mistake or typo regarding that specific word or term. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unambiguous, plausible typo, and decent numbers of pageviews. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:39, 21 November 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).