Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. ✗plicit 14:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Atlantoöccipital articulations → Atlanto-occipital joint  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Anterior atlantoöccipital membrane → Anterior atlantooccipital membrane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Anterior atlantoöccipital ligament → Anterior atlantooccipital membrane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Posterior atlantoöccipital membrane → Posterior atlantooccipital membrane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These pages clearly derive from typos as the character ö does not appear in latin and these terms are not used in literature, see also this discussion on one of their talk pages. I believe that if they were recent pages, they would fulfill WP:R3 from the speedy deletion criteria, but as its multiple old pages, I'm listing them here. Since entering a term with the diaresis diacritic does not seem to matter for Wikipedia search unless there is a specific page with it in its name, these redirects do not bear any value and should be deleted. The respective redirect or article pages without diacritics seem to already exist. Withdrawn nomination, see below. YuniToumei (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page histories of Anterior atlantoöccipital membrane and Posterior atlantoöccipital membrane?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources do sometimes use the diaeresis, so that's really the end of the story as far as RfD is concerned. They're not typos, and the Latin usage matters much less than the English usage, which does sometimes use the diaeresis for this purpose (see User:Tamzin/The diaeresis). And while they're not likely to be terribly useful in searching, that's not a particularly strong argument for deletion when the redirect is precise, found in sources, and free from WP:RFD#DELETE issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the helpful comment! I wasn't aware of this usage of these diacritics in english sources. Seems like I should've done some more close reading after seeing the page histories. I'll withdraw my nomination accordingly. Cheers! YuniToumei (talk) 23:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ap (ghost) → Krasue  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure this use of "Ap" is legitimate. The article refers to "The word អាប (Ahp/Aap)..." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In use, obvious alternative spelling in a language without a single standardised romanization system. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – even if it's not a legitimate spelling, it's a plausible and unambiguous misspelling. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:24, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hong Kong national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Hong Kong men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kuwait national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Kuwait men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Indonesia national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Indonesia men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Singapore national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Singapore men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• South Africa national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → South Africa men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Comoros national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Comoros men's national basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kazakhstan national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Kazakhstan men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Zambia national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Zambia men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete all:

• WP:XY – the under-17 team is not discussed at these targets
• What about, say Indonesia women's national under-16 basketball team? Why target the vague "national" to "men's national"?

Credit to Maiō T. who created a useful list of such redirects. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 18:58, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2026 Kansas City Chiefs season → Kansas City Chiefs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2026 New England Patriots season → New England Patriots  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2026 Miami Dolphins season → Miami Dolphins  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2026 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season → Tampa Bay Buccaneers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2026 Philadelphia Eagles season → Philadelphia Eagles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2026 Buffalo Bills season → Buffalo Bills  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:TOOSOON, no relevant info at targets, making these redirects misleading. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, probably at least one year before any reasonable content could be included--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that another team season redirect for the same season was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_22#2026_Houston_Texans_season. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G8. ✗plicit 23:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NWHL profile → Template:PHF profile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Same as Template:PHF Profile. rm this redirect page. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 24. MikeVitale 16:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: once a template is deleted, all redirects to it are also deleted, so no need for RfD to get involved. Gonnym (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a broken redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 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 retarget to King Edward. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• King Edwards → Sound system (Jamaican)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous title. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDBIO. The group (the brothers George and Vin Edwards) is potentially notable (see [1]), but the current target doesn't contain any information on them apart from the name. Having a redlink is an incentive to create the article. Tevildo (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to King Edward, where one value of "King Edward's" is already found, and others can be added -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to King Edward (which includes King Edward potato) and add the current target there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud. KOLANO12 3 09:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• AR-M100390 → ARM390  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"AR-M 1000390" (emphasis on extra 0) seems to be the same thing as ARM390 [2], but I'm not confident that AR-M100390 is as well. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Some sources list AR-M100390 as a synonym (without the extra zero). See [3] and [4]. Garsh (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In Vivo Delta Opioid Receptor Internalization Controls Behavioral Effects of Agonists (PMID 19412545) explicitly says in section Results:AR-M100390 (ARM390) is a close SNC80 derivative (see the full text available at PubMed Central: [5]), which indicates the two symbols being synonyms. Also, someone before me has added this synonymity to {{Opioid receptor modulators}}, which remained a red-link until I added the redirect in discussion, and then skipped it with Special:Diff/1259323285. --CiaPan (talk) 21:25, 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 delete. Jay 💬 16:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bus Testing and Research Center → Pennsylvania Transportation Institute  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Quite ambiguous title not discussed at target. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's an entire section on this in the article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the inversion of "testing" and "research" is a small but important difference. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops. Good catch. I'm fine with deletion then. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kind of a dumb mistake on my part, thanks for pointing it out! 42-BRT (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does discuss the Altoona Bus Testing and Research Center, which is a part of the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute which is frequently mentioned in articles discussing public transit. Perhaps it'd be better to redirect from Altoona Bus Testing and Research Center. 42-BRT (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be unambiguous. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:27, 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 Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...}

• Illustrative aid → E-learning (theory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Quite ambiguous title and not discussed at target. Seems to also have a legal meaning, based on search results. Delete as ambigous. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 50/50 between deleting per nom -- this could refer to hundreds of things, way too vague even for a dab page...or retargeting to Diagram, as possibly the only reasonable match for such a general term. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete makes the assumption that visual aids did not exist before electronic teaching aids -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:14, 26 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Algeria national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Algeria men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY – the under-17 team is not discussed. Also, what about the women's team for the same age bracket? Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. {{db-g7}} Maiō T. (talk) 18:09, 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 delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel). → Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo to add punctuation to the end (the period key is quite far away from the 0 key). Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely misspelling. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 23:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Taxi to Heaven → The Aerial Cabman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not seeing this used as an alternative name or translation. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator seems to be CU blocked. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:50, 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 delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultrajectine Communion → wiktionary:Ultraiectinus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The RfD previous discussion ended up on deciding on a soft redirect with my approval. However, I am having second thoughts on this Ultrajectine Communion redirect that I had bundled with Ultrajectine in this previous RfD.

I do not think a reader searching for "Ultrajectine Communion" will be satisfied with being led to the Wiktionary link to the Latin word for 'of Utrecht'. "Ultrajectine Communion" is not an used expression, and it is not used to refer to the Union of Utrecht.

Thus, I propose this redirect be deleted. Veverve (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was the one who proposed the soft retarget, but I am comfortable with deleting this specific redirect per the nom's rationale. This doesn't seem to be a phrase used to refer to the Union of Utrecht. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:06, 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 Mate cocido. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mate tea (drink) → Mate (drink)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mate tea is also a drink, so this seems confusing. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to mate cocido per nom. for better or worse, i know the exact demographic of this redirect, and they'd actually want both results. still, mate cocido is slightly more accurate in the context of places that aren't brazil, so as far as this wiki cares, it should redirect to that one cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mate cocido as {{r avoided double redirect}} and {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}} of Mate tea. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:18, 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 2023 Dutch general election. People aren't exactly happy with doing that, but unless there's a consensus to delete (which there is nowhere near, despite grumblings) then this has to target something. And of the two targets there's more support for the standalone article than the section, so here we go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 Dutch general election → Elections in the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no election planned in 2025 Dajasj (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Elections in the Netherlands#2023 general election. According to 2023 Dutch general election, that election was expected to take place in 2025 but was called early on short notice, so this is a very plausible search term. I've added a summary to the target article that explains this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would then be more sustainable to link to redirect to 2023 Dutch general election, because the section header will be changed after the next election (and we will have forgotten about it). Also avoids duplicating content.

  More generally I disagree with redirecting with a hypothetical situation, but in this specific case it is also ambiguous because 2025 could also refer to a hypothetical snap election after 2023 (if the cabinet fell today, that would be the earliest moment). Dajasj (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The cabinet failing before the next expected election is different to the expected next election unexpectedly not happening. Sources regularly talk about the next expected election, so there will be sources from pre-July 2023 talking about the 2025 elections that people will see and search for information about. Sources since that date don't expect 2025 elections, they talk about 2028 elections in the expected manner. If elections do happen in 2025 then obviously this redirect will be correctly usurped by an article about those elections. That article will mention the circumstances and explain things for those who arrive looking for what became the 2023 election. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Retarget to 2023 Dutch general election, the article about the Dutch general election that was originally planned for 2025. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Refine or retarget? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose 2023 Dutch general election would be the most logical target, as that election would have been held in 2025 if the cabinet had not fallen (and some sources written before might refer to an election "planned for 2025"). However, I'm not a big supporter of having such alternative history redirects in the first place; it feels a bit like redirecting Presidential inauguration of Kamala Harris to Second inauguration of Donald Trump. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 10:18, 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 no consensus. This discussion did not see participation despite a relist and a wait for 25 days. There appears to be agreement on the redirections made by the nom. Jay 💬 08:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kikurage → Auricularia heimuer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kikurage mushroom → Auricularia heimuer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kikurage mushrooms → Auricularia heimuer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure what the path forward here is with these redirects. I recently changed the target of these redirects from Tremella fuciformis to Auricularia heimuer (while creating Kikurage) after finding that most results in English for the term "Kikurage" refer to Auricularia heimuer (specifically its use in Japanese cuisine), which would claim it to essentially be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term due to its common use in English to refer to the Japanese culinary use. However, after reviewing Tremella fuciformis, the term "Kikurage" is mentioned in the article, which is probably why the redirects Kikurage mushroom and Kikurage mushrooms targeted there. At this point, I'm not sure if "keep", "retarget" or "disambiguate" (possibly by retargeting to Wood ear?) is the best course of action here, so I'm bringing this up for discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just from reading the articles it seems that the redirects to Auricularia heimuer are correct. Tremella fuciformis is the shiro kikurage (or white kikurage) in Japanese. I don't think this is just a white form of kikurage, as it is a very different fungi (different taxonomic classes). This seems to me more akin to tiger and Tasmanian tiger where the latter are not closely related to cats. The only question is whether "Kikurage mushrooms" could be used for such different mushrooms that are used quite differently in cooking.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:30, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:JEW → Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:JEW/MOS → Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• MOS:JESUS → Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style#Jesus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The potential for mischief with such shortcuts is high, because editors who encounter them "cited" in talk-page arguments are highly likely to trust that they are MoS guidelines with the authority of community consensus acceptance, instead of being pre-WP:PROPOSAL essays by a small number of editors with little broader editorial-community input. The advice in the page might even mostly be good, but it is not (yet?) part of MoS and should not masquerade as such. Some of its wording has been a bit ranty and even leaning in an us-vs.-them direction, and ironically riddled with MoS-compliance failures (some of this I cleaned up in a particular section [6], but it needs a lot more work). The page really has not seen much substantive improvement in over a decade.

I've created a new WP:JUDAISMSTYLE shortcut for this page, and a WP:JESUSCHRIST one (in place of "MOS:JESUS" for the "Christ"-related material's anchor point in the page). The latter doesn't really doesn't belong in this page, as it is not a Judaism matter. The advice there is correct, however, and should probably be moved into a guideline page, likely WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Honorifics (as now proposed here), at which point an "MOS:" shortcut for it could be reinstituted. These seem to be the only shortcuts to this page. I'm skeptical that "JEW" in such constructions is a good idea, as it can have conflicting interpretations. But regular editors in what wikiproject might want "WP:JEW/STYLE" to go along with other subpage shortcuts they use.

Delete. These are not MoS pages. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 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 Anti (album). Jay 💬 16:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A Night → Rihanna#Discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Since the now blocked sockpuppet TeapotsOfDoom nominated this redirect four days earlier and it was speedily kept per WP:BE, I'm reopening the discussion because I'm not really sure if it has a particular connection to Rihanna. The closest I could find via a Google search was part of the lyrics for "Goodnight Gotham" (which contains a sample of "Only If for a Night" by Florence and the Machine), but other than that, I'm not sure if it warrants a redirect to Rihanna's page, since 1) it's also part of the titles and/or lyrics for countless other songs and 2) it's a partial title match for multiple other articles and/or redirects (so I'm not sure where, if anywhere, is appropriate to retarget this). Delete this unless someone can provide a justification or a suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 05:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backstory on why this redirect exists in the first place... this redirect was originally created in February 2015 when a snippet of what was then known as "A Night" was included in a Dior advertisement.

At the time, the song was unreleased (it wouldn't officially be released until January 2016 on Anti (album)), but "A Night" is the official title that the song was registered under in the ASCAP database, so that's how it was referred until the final title was revealed to be "Goodnight Gotham" upon its official release.

If kept, the target should be changed to Anti (album).

[7] RachelTensions (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but retarget per nom., Also create A Night (disambiguation), and use a {{Redirect}} hatnote at the album article. The DAB page should list the song, the concept "a night" (we cannot count on readers to capitalize correctly, especially since English is inconsistent and does capitalize some temporal things like days of the week), and add templated means in "See also" of looking up other works and such that start with "A Night", or have "a Night" in their title or in a subtitle. Various works will be known to some readers by partial titles or by lines/fragments from them, so this will be helpful for readers looking for "A Night ... something something, I dunno". Have One Night (disambiguation) as a see-also. I'm surprised there aren't other major works and other notable things just named "A Night"; contrast A Day (disambiguation). I suspect there are, actually, including other songs by notable artists.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "A Night" is now mentioned at Anti (album). RachelTensions (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Anti (album) per above. We probably don't need a separate DAB per WP:DABCOMBINE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Male protagonist bingo → Gender representation in video games#Portrayal of men  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful redirect that sounds a lot like the title of some Tumblr meme. Not relavent or mentioned in the article. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:33, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RubRub → Geometry Dash#Pre-Geometry Dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is what community members jokingly call the creator of this game so it's possible fancruft. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Hamtaro: Ham-Ham Heartbreak where a different topic by this name is mentioned -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a niche term, so anyone knowing this nickname probably knows the proper name as well. The mention at Hamtaro: Ham-Ham Heartbreak is so pitiful that it does not warrant a redirect. It would aso WP:ASTONISH readers. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Ca. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not Urban Dictionary or Know Your Meme. Neither of these potential targets appear to be encyclopedically appropriate. In both cases, it's some kind if insider silliness. If we did keep this as a non-redlink, I suppose it should be a two-item DAB page since neither person is clearly a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this nickname or whatever you want to call it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:08, 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 List of The Wheel of Time characters#Mat Cauthon. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shen an calhar → World of Warcraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

How did this end up redirecting to WoW? Apparently, this somehow got redirected to the wrong franchise. Slight research shows that it's supposed to be from Wheel of Time. That being said, there doesn't seem to be a mention on that on there either. It appears that "The Band of the Red Hand" is a more common name for that in-universe group that the articles do mention. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Wheel of Time characters#Mat Cauthon, as that's also what Band of the Red Hand redirects to. Procyon117 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, upon further inspection, turns out it did originally redirect to the correct franchise, but was changed for an unknown reason. Could probably just be reverted back if you're not opposed to doing so. Procyon117 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless someone adds a mention at the proposed target. I don't see how anyone would benefit from this if it isn't mentioned anywhere. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per CycloneYoris. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to add a mention to the correct franchise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was redirected to Mat Cauthon per its AfD, which I have just tagged to the talk page. Mat Cauthon before its BLAR had mention of Shen an calhar. Jay 💬 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of The Wheel of Time characters#Mat Cauthon where I have added the mention. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:47, 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 retarget to List of Mario franchise characters#Hammer. I placed an anchor for further refinement. I also started a discussion on the talk page for the inclusion of Japanese names. (non-admin closure) Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ハンマーブロス → List of Mario franchise characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not helpful for the English encyclopedia. Appears to refer to the Hammer Bros. antagonists in the Mario franchise. TNstingray (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak refine to #enemy characters. yeah, that refers to hammer bros. mario is a japanese franchise (really japanese, even, have you seen how many tanuki they can cram into a single game?), so japanese redirects are fine and dandy, though this one isn't mentioned, so meh cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow target per cogsan, and give the Japanese in the article. It's entirely reasonable to expect various native or non-native speakers of English who are big fans of this culture-spanning franchise to run into Japanese references to characters, so we should help them. It's pretty conventional with regard to translated media for us to give original other-language names of characters and things, especially since various academic or other sources may refer to the original-language version or a translation or both at once (and might even be constrasting them, if significant changes were made beyond name-rendering).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:16, 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 delete. Closing this as we are nearing 50 days of this discussion, with discussion having petered off. There is a general consensus that this object does not warrant mention at the target, and the page creator agrees in a way that this does not warrant a stand-along article through their BLAR. Hog Farm _Talk 04:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• PKS 1402-012 → Parkes Catalogue of Radio Sources  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This belongs on the target list, but is just one of 8000, and isn't mentioned there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was an article which existed for a short time, but was then BLARed by the creator/sole substantive contributor, Galaxybeing. If GB gives the go-ahead, this could probably just be G7ed. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  oops, fixed ping for Galaxybeing 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:14, 4 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) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and tag with {{R with possibilities}}; I added PKS 1402-012 to the bulleted list at Parkes Catalogue of Radio Sources pulling a reference from the redirect page history that I thought was the most general (I didn't parse through those 33 references too thoroughly though). This doesn't quite satisfy WP:SELFRED, but there's enough in the page history to benefit another editor if this object becomes more notable. Should GalaxyBeing request deletion, I trust that decision. ― Synpath 20:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Galaxybeing created the article in June and BLARd it in September as non-notable. Delete considering this as a de facto WP:G7, as the most siginificant contributor who decided that the article should no longer be there. Also, remove the mention of it from the target, since it won't be a bluelink, and should not be a redlink or an unlinked entry, and remove it from {{Virgo (constellation)}} as well. Jay 💬 15:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies#Antigens. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ro (antigen) → Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Autoantigen Ro → Calreticulin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We need an expert to determine if these are correctly targeted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the first link, as the "Ro antigen" is mentioned there and I think this is the main article discussing it. Is there some controversy we're not aware of? For the second link, the Ro antigen is also a Ro autoantigen, that is, this is an autoimmune response. Hence, also Redirect "Autoantigen Ro" to Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies. Calreticulin was not a terrible target, but Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies is the more relevant target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies#Antigens where the Ro antigens are discussed thoroughly. The Calreticulin article states that it is proven to not be a Ro antigen. ― Synpath 14:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of consensus, redirect to the Antigens section is also a good outcome. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per Mark viking--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both per Synpath. The current 2nd redir is clearly and error, and there's no clear reason to not go to the section specifically about the antigens. I guess I could live with both targeting the bare Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies link, but being vague like that doesn't seem helpful to the readership.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both per Synpath. Initially had some concerns regarding the Calreticulin article, since the sentence that mentions it not being a Ro antigen appears to be unsourced. However, I was able to locate one here: [8]. Other published results demonstrate mild disagreement [9], but overall consensus point towards Calreticulin being associated with Ro/SS-A antigen rather than a target of the Anti-Ro autoantibody. [10] [11] VolatileAnomaly (talk) 09:01, 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 Move history * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Indy HeroClix (heroclix) → HeroClix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate DAB formatting by listing it both inside and outside the parentheses. Delete as unhelpful redirect. If kept, please redirect to List of HeroClix supplements#Main series. TNstingray (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, indeed, bring me to the page about a heroclix! Which one? The one that's a heroclix! This is a very implausible disambiguation attempt, and we don't need it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move the non-insignificant edit history to Indy Clix (which seems to be the real name per Google searches) and retartget to List of HeroClix supplements#Main series as suggested. BOZ (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above after moving page history or move without redirect to Indy Clix. Jay 💬 12:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:21, 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 new standalone article at Chinggisids. This was a fruitful discussion and the outcome is as per AirshipJungleman29's final summary. Several redirects were discussed, and there will be impact on most of them.

However, only one, Chingisid was tagged for the RfD, and as closer, I'll modify only this. I did not want to tag the rest and push the close by another week, for a discussion that has been dormant for almost a month. @AirshipJungleman29 and Nederlandse Leeuw: please modify the others accordingly as per what was decided. Jay 💬 12:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chingisid → Borjigin#Genghisids  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Which articles should these redirects point to? The current situation is inconsistent and confusing.

1. Chingisid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
2. Chingissid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
3. Chinggisid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
4. Chinggisids redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
5. Chingissids does not exist yet.
6. Chinggissids does not exist yet.
7. Genghisids redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
8. Genghisid redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan
9. Chingizid redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan
10. Family tree of Genghis Khan redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan.
11. Jochid redirects to Jochi, but Jochids redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan. (Jochid Ulus redirects to Golden Horde, that seems fine).

Personally, I am in favour of redirecting them all to Descent from Genghis Khan, as a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid is, strictly speaking, a descendant from Genghis Khan, not an earlier Borjigin, while Genghis Khan himself was obviously not a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid, but a Borjigin only. Redirecting to a section always risks link rot anyway, as section titles often change or they are rearranged, while Descent from Genghis Khan as a whole will presumably always be dedicated to this very subject. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Not sure if I formatted this RfD correctly; I rarely do these. Do I need to tag all redirects in question? NLeeuw (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Section redirects are useful in taking the reader straight to the relevent part of a large article. A link from Genghisids to Borjigin can confuse the reader, since the Borjigin article does mention Genghisids in the lead. Link rot can be reduced by linking to an anchor rather than a section name, e.g. {{anchor|Genghisids}}. An editor is likely to preserve the anchor. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw if you meant to nominate all of them, then no. if you want to nominate multiple redirects at once, you could try this mass xfd tool. then again, it doesn't matter much, since anyone could just do whatever is deemed necessary with them after this is closed (except deleting, that's an admin thing) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See this version of the Chingisid article. The broadest meaning of the term is "to do with Ghengis Khan", and could mean "descended from Ghengis" but could have various other meanings depending on context. Possibly the solution would be to pick the spelling used in the largest number of articles and make it a disambiguation page pointing to Descent from Genghis Khan, Yassa, Khanate and Golden Horde. Point the other spellings to the disambiguation page. Links can then be cleaned up to point to the page that discusses the intended meaning. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A disamb page might indeed be the best solution here. What do others think? NLeeuw (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been intending to create a new article on the Chinggisid dynasty for some time. If others are amenable, I can get started in the next couple of days. The first nine redirects can then target that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pages that refer to Chinggisid dynasty should link to it directly. But the disambiguation page would also list Descent from Genghis Khan, the Chingisid principle (Yassa golden lineage), Chingisid states (Khanates), Chingisid people (e.g. Golden Horde) and Chingizid (moth). The various forms of Chingisid should redirect to the disambiguation page. A page that included a link to, e.g., Chingizid would be flagged for clarification. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, if the dynasty is the dominant meaning of the term (I don't think it is, may be wrong), the forms of Chingisid would redirect to Chinggisid dynasty, which would have a hatnote {{Otheruses|Chinggisid (disambiguation)}}, and Chinggisid (disambiguation) would list the other meanings. We need a list of all pages that use some variant of the word, with or without a link, showing what they mean by it. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't think "Chingisid dynasty" as such makes much sense. There are competing definitions of what a "dynasty" even is; a series of hereditary monarchs who each sat on the throne, excluding all their relatives who didn't? The entire family of that series of hereditary monarchs? The "state" or "empire" governed by them? Etc. See the discussions about Rurikid dynasty and category:Rurik dynasty, where we ended up renaming them to just Rurikids and Category:Rurikids. Similarly, see the recent scholarly work of Raffensperger & Ostrowski 2023, The Ruling Families of Rus, where the whole concept of a dynasty is heavily criticised as an outdated and ambigious concept that erases lots of people from history who didn't sit on the throne, despite wielding significant political or otherwise power and influence for sometimes decades. (Note: they also discuss 'house', 'clan' and 'family', and end up choosing 'family', as can be seen in the title.) If there is to be a new article, separate from the existing ones on Borjigin and Descent from Genghis Khan, I strongly recommend that the title be Chingisids, and to omit a word like 'dynasty'. NLeeuw (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      PS: But really, I think such an article might easily become a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the existing articles, so let's make sure it would have added value separate from what we've already got, or integrate such contents into our existing articles. My question here is just to make consistent redirects. NLeeuw (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I strongly disagree. The term "Chinggisids" has strong independent notability as distinct from the Borjigin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I may start an Index of articles related to Ghengis Khan, including redirects. I suspect there is a fair amount of forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Crimean Giray dynasty was referred to as the "Genghisids". Genghisid/Chinggisid literally means Borjigin dynasty. Descent from Genghis Khan is irrelevant in this context, and I don't even know why this article exists. Should be merged. "Chingisid dynasty" doesn't exist. Only two words should be redirected Chinggisids and Genghisids. Beshogur (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but similarly, lots of people were referred to, or referred to themselves, as "Romans", and yet histiographical convention names a great number of them "Byzantines", for example. We could theoretically always merge everything, but we'll soon end up with articles that are WP:TOOLONG (e.g. List of Roman emperors should imo have been split, because it's way too long to navigate comfortably, and we already had List of Byzantine emperors.) Although I made a plea for not splitting off a new articles named Chingisids above if there was no obvious need, I think we shouldn't underestimate the value of splitting up articles either. NLeeuw (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Descent from Genghis Khan is a very odd article that should probably be redirected, but Chinggisid is distinct from the wider Borjigin term primarily because it was descent from Genghis, not general membership of the Borjigin, that legitimised rule in the post-Mongol world. See discussion in e.g. May 2017. While the Borjigin altan urugh (golden family) included the descendants of Genghis's brothers and of his children by concubines such as Kolgen, they were not eligible for rulership because they were not Chinggisid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I see a solution. I will expand Chinggisids until it is reasonably complete; Borjigin needs also a little bit of expansion and a lot of rewriting to match current scholarship (many of its sources are half a century old and vastly out of date).

Meanwhile, Descent from Genghis Khan should be renamed and refocused onto the matter of genetic descent from Genghis—i.e. the numerous papers that have been released after the "16 million descendants" article from 2003.

All redirects seem fairly self-explanatory then, except for Jochid/Jochids which should probably redirect to Golden Horde, and Family tree of Genghis Khan which would probably work best as a redirect to Chinggisids, if I can figure out how the family tree thing works. Thanks for bringing matter up, NLeeuw. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Yes, I suppose renaming Descent from Genghis Khan to Genetic descent from Genghis Khan or something works better. Chinggisids can then fully focus on the reigning families of the late Middle Ages descended from Genghis or married into that family. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would recommend doing a search query in reliable sources to check for the WP:COMMONNAME. We better prevent endless disputes about how to spel "Chingisids" (I don't care which, but we need to pick one). NLeeuw (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current spelling (Chinggisids) is favoured in most reliable sources that I can see, including all cited so far in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrams appears to overwhelmingly agree. I'm a bit surprised; I'm not that familiar with the double g spelling. Halperin 1987, which I use a lot for reference, has single g, single s, and some of his sources are single g, double s, but apparently they are in the minority. Ngrams shows the double g, single s spelling quickly gaining ground from the 1990s onwards. Seems like you've chosen the right title, so I guess that settles it. NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal I think we already reached agreement, but let's make it clear.
  • Redirect no. #4 has been turned into stand-alone article Chinggisids, which is good. (Thanks to AirshipJungleman29!).
  • Redirects no. #1, #2, #3, #7, #8 and #9 should all redirect to Chinggisids.
  • If anyone ever created no. #5 or #6, they should redirect to Chinggisids as well.
  • Redirects no. #10 and no. #11 can remain unchanged.
  • A requested move (RM) for Descent from Genghis Khan could be discussed on Talk:Descent from Genghis Khan if the current title is found to be inadequate. AirshipJungleman29 could initiate such an RM if they please.

This seems to be the outcome of the discussion above, but we haven't yet formally agreed that we are going to resolve the question this way, so let's make it official. NLeeuw (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As above, Chinggisids is the COMMONNAME for the new destination, and it has sufficient independent notability to exist as a distinct article. That resolves most of the confusion with the transliterations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looks like it could be an OCR error or a pronunciation spelling -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete doesn't seem plausable but does get some Google results. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 48 total page views since creation. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Entirely plausible typo, especially from both OCR and from non-native English speakers for whom "ch" rarely represents the "tsh" sound (which it doesn't even consistently in English, anyway: cf. anarchy, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Phonetically, I can definitely see how this misspelling could be possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible misspelling, seems unambiguous. Has some degree of some. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:39, 26 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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lu Tianna → Kirsten Gillibrand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's unclear why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This site and other, seemingly less reliable, sources indicate that "Lu Tianna" is a Chinese-language name adopted by or used to refer to Gillibrand. There is precedent to keep these sorts of names, as seen in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31#Foreign language redirects to Kamala Harris. But, unlike Harris's Chinese names, I don't find evidence of widespread use. I am willing to reconsider if evidence that this is indeed commonly used by Chinese speakers to refer to Gillibrand exists. Note that Lu Tian Na, which is used here by the New York Times, exists as well. I am not a Chinese speaker so cannot say if the number of words makes a difference. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is treated like a Chinese name, then the variant spellings available from "Lu Tianna" would be "Lu Tian-na", "Lu Tian-Na", "Lu Tian Na" -- and the flipped forms "Tianna Lu", "Tian-na Lu", "Tian Na Lu" -- NYT uses one of the styles you can do with the syllables. In the PRC, the preferred form would have a single "word" to represent a name, so "Lu Tianna" if Lu is the surname and Tianna is the given name. This isn't the preferred style used in Hong Kong or Taiwan though. That is dependent and independent on romanization method, as some people style their names differently from the romanization method's preferred form. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on Sun8908's explanation below, I've struck my original !vote and am in favor of keeping. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Her Chinese name is known by the Chinese-language world, used by Chinese-language media. I can search a bunch of news article if I search on Google by her Chinese name "陸天娜" [12][13][14]. The name Lu Tianna (陆天娜; 陸天娜) is used by herself, pretty irrelevant to her English name. Lu Tianna, Lu Tian Na, Lu Tian-Na, Lu Tian-na are essentially the same, just with or without space or hyphen. It is just the difference of transliteration, all of them are used to some degree (and actually "Lu Tianna" is the most conventional transliteration). However, the transliteration is not a conventional way to refer to her, not in Chinese media or English media. This makes me doubt but I am still leaning that it is more useful than harmful. Sun8908 _Talk 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not mentioned at target. If you have to do this level of OR to justify a redirect, then just don't. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pppery. It seems other Chinese language name will preferred from Kirsten. Unfortunately, there is no absolutely match why did transliterated in other romanization name. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only if Lu Tian Na, Lu Tian-Na, and Lu Tian-na are also deleted, or bundled here. Per Sun8908,"Lu Tianna" is the most conventional transliteration, so I don't see why this should be deleted if the others can stay. Jay 💬 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sun8908 as useful and unambiguous. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947, and to a lesser extent Jay. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:34, 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 Nobody wants to keep this as is, there's some movement to retarget to the disambiguation, but even there deletion is prefered and I have to close as one or the other * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

unmentioned, results gave me some unrelated brand that does Things™. incoming links seem to imply that it's a developer that worked under ljn maybe probably, but that's all the info i got cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Interactive (disambiguation) as a (mis)pronunciation spelling -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Interactive (disambiguation) as a plausible misspelling (vowels that reduce to schwa can easily be mistaken for each other). Fieari (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a schwa though; it's a stressed short i. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My local dialect/accent definitely reduces it to a schwa sometimes, nearly dropping it altogether. 'nteractive. 'nternet. I don't think this is uncommon. Fieari (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not totally off the wall as a misspelling, but still pretty unlikely given how common "inter-" is as a prefix. And in this case, having this would be harmful as it would inhibit searching for this actual term, which has quite a few hits in WP already as various company names (none of which are main enough for a redirect themselves). This seems to be what the original target was for, but I'm having trouble finding much about the exact relationship. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. And to add a little, god forbid I say the P-word, but yes WP:PANDORA applies, lest "enter-" redirects are deemed appropriate to make for all the (what I assume are) thousands of articles that begin with "inter-". This one is only even being intertained entertained because this redirect was up here for a different reason. Arguing for a retarget (and why to the dab page? Why not to the same place that "interactive" itself redirects?) is tantamount to saying: yes, we should delete this, but we should also make a brand new redirect, which no one seems to have bothered doing in the many years that the thousands of "inter-" articles have existed. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was curious, and Special:Prefixindex/Inter just goes on and on, so I ran the numbers. "Thousands" is correct. There's currently 10360 mainspace pages with titles starting "Inter", and another 22605 mainspace redirects starting "Inter"; 10407 of those redirects target mainspace pages not starting with "Inter", so would need {{R from avoided double redirect}}s created too if we took this as a mandate.
    For my part, I don't strongly care whether it's kept or deleted, but do not retarget to the disambig unless something with that spelling is mentioned there. (And I doubt it would belong if it were.) Not a plausible misspelling. For context, original target was LJN Toys, which at the time was a separate article that did prominently mention this term. —Cryptic 19:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment: a little late to remember to mention and probably inconsequential at this point, but the only evidence i found of enteractive working under ljn was circular. that is, old diffs and incoming links cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect inhibits Search which reveals 20 legitimate mentions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:17, 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 delete. There was an opinion to follow precedent of an earlier related RfD, but with a deviated retarget outcome of September 30. However, it did not find support in the following two relists. Jay 💬 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No mention of September 31 in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone unify it with #April 31? Web-julio (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note a redirect with this title was deleted in 2017, but a deletion review discussion overturned G4 speedy deletion as it had a different target (September). Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So now we have two other proposed targets. Any place this can point is guesswork, and a redlink clearly tells the user that there is no September 31. Still support deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the current target already tells this day doesn't exist, especially cause if it existed it would have its own mainspace article. Anyways, does December 32 imply it exists? Web-julio (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. October 1 would parallel an April 31 → May 1 RfD. But September 30 might be the likely sought-for page for users who simply forgot September's last date. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to September 30 per @Hyphenation Expert. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the current target page talk wasn't notified. Web-julio (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• September, which says that it has only 30 days in the first (very short) paragraph, makes more sense than either of the two new proposals, and I'd say to retarget there if there were any internal links. But there aren't, and a redlink is a better result here for all other use cases. Delete. —Cryptic 06:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if September 31 ever gets talked about in Wikipedia, it would be in the current target (list). However, it's not yet. Though both mentions the words separatedly. Web-julio (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pppery. There is no information on why did the editor must added in a leap year for September. IMO, there is only 30 days beneath the month of September but not added in one day. See this: [15] ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 03:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's difficult to search for evidence of a legitimate use of September 31 (meaning 31st September, other uses being ambiguous eg September 1931), but I can't find any. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there seems to be no support for the reasonable use of September 31 outside of an error. The redlink will help call that out to someone who tries to introduce it in an article. The current target makes no sense as it primarily deals with specific, intentional use of a non-standard date, to which there is no current listing for September 31. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Chalcolithic cultures of China → List of Neolithic cultures of China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list of Chalcolithic cultures exists at the target. This does not appear to be a subject that is discussed on Wikipedia at this time. Previously existed as a list with one entry.

This title may be able to be salvaged if the list of Neolithic cultures is expanded to include Chalcolithic cultures. However, searching for an article about a "Copper Age list" and being sent to an article about a "Stone Age list" does not seem generally helpful in a vacuum, and would be confusing to readers if there is no indication or hatnote about why they ended up here (that there may not have been enough content to substantiate an individual page for Chalcolithic). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:05, 30 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 03:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. No, there isn't a list at the target, but several of the cultures at the target were able to work copper in their later years, such as the Erligang culture and the Yueshi culture, so it seems reasonable to keep this until such a time that a proper list is split off. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - no Chalcolithic list exists. The page history needn't be kept. We have the redirect Chalcolithic China pointing to the same target, but probably that should point to Chalcolithic#East Asia. Jay 💬 13:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not mentioned at target, time to meet the standard fate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Honestly, the two lists at the target appear to be excellent outlines of not only Neolithic cultures but also both Copper Age and Bronze Age cultures. List_of_Neolithic_cultures_of_China#Schematic_outline is particularly useful as a Chalcolithic list, even if the Chalcolithic ones aren't explicitly pointed out. Regardless of the title of the target, this redirect appears to be a pretty good {{R from subtopic}} to me. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Chalcolithic#East Asia, where there are some Chalcolithic cultures of China listed in prose format. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:26, 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 Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Karhusaari (island) → Angelniemi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect. There are several islands named Karhusaari in Finland, the island in Angelniemi is not the only one and probably the most notable either. The redirect had two incoming links, neither of which was actually about the island in Angelniemi: one was for an island in Espoo and the other for an island in Kuopio. I removed the wikilinks from both. This redirect should be deleted until we have an actual article about at least some island named Karhusaari. JIP | Talk 12:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created this redirect when reviewing Karhusaari (disambiguation) because of the line in the article Angelniemi: "Other isles of Angelniemi are Angelansaari, Kokkilansaari, Pikkusaari and Karhusaari". If there are other islands then fine: mention them in the appropriate article and disambiguate at Karhusaari (disambiguation) to where this redirect should point. Otherwise, we actually do "have an actual article about at least some island named Karhusaari". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC) (Not an expert in Finland but once had a lovely trip to Helsinki)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are indeed many, see ceb:Karhusaari. Probably the base name should be a DAB and thus this redirect there. Karhusaari is also an island which has an article here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crouch, Swale: ... but as you know, a disambiguation page is not a list of things in the world, but an index of articles on English Wikipedia (of which we currently have two). By all means improve the existing Karhusaari (disambiguation), because otherwise it can be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Shhhnotsoloud, pending mention of other islands on enwiki. Jay 💬 17:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Matsubara dialect → Tokunoshima language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in target article. Google search pulls little results bar city existence and being a Japanese dialect. Blethering Scot 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're called dialects (方言), they're actually Ryukyuan dialects, and not part of Japanese (see Japanese dialects). As for the existence of the Matsubara dialect, there are some information about the pitch accent data from a quick search:

https://doi.org/10.15002/00012659

I wonder what else could be the criteria. Chuterix (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:04, 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 No consensus * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

nonsense redirect Golikom (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per this source, this source, and this source, "Turkish Turkish" is not a nonsense statement, but rather one used for categorical purposes.

We must also keep in mind that "English English", "French French", "German German", and "Spanish Spanish" all exist too. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can hardly call these sources. Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Comment: I assume "Turkish Turkish" means the Anatolian dialects of Turkish (i.e., the Turkish language as spoken in Turkey). In that case the appropriate target might be Turkish dialects#Anatolian dialects. Similar redirects include German German (redirects to German Standard German), Spanish Spanish (redirects to Peninsular Spanish), English English (redirects to English language in England), French French (redirects to French of France), and Portuguese Portuguese (redirects to European Portuguese). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully agree. Of course, the redirect still shouldn't be deleted. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't be deleted because you created it? Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's "Turkish of Turkey" if you look for the proper term. There is nothing like this nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we assumed users only used "the proper term" for everything we wouldn't need any redirects at all. BugGhost🦗👻 23:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no single evidence that this term exists. Try googling google books. No one uses it. These "sources" aren't even sources. What's next? Making inventions, because it's ok? It doesn't exist and no one uses it. Beshogur (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Beshogur I think you're falling into wp:bludgeoning territory - you have posted 12 comments on this RfD - I assure you everyone who comes across this listing will read your view on it, repeating yourself doesn't make yourself more persuasive. Regarding the actual terms, it's worth noting that "Turkish Turkish" is a more popular term on Google than "Turkish of Turkey" - see this trends result. BugGhost🦗👻 18:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First, Turkish of Turkey is the translation of Türkiye Türkçesi, a common Turkish term used by the Turkish Language Association, second, that's not even a redirect, only mentioned in the article as a translation, because it's the second alternative name to Turkish. Googling "Turkish Turkish" can be misleading, because it doesn't look at commas, etc. I am saying that you can't find anyone using this in a linguistic book, whatsoever. How come no one discovered this until this particular user redirected in late 2024? Plus this user's one source is cooking book, another one Sydney government, another one some shady language learning website. It's not even clear that they're meaning that. What's next? Turkish Turks -> Turkish people. And this is my last comment. Beshogur (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is no such thing. There is "Turkish of Turkey" (Türkiye Türkçesi). Beshogur (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "Turkish Turkish" means the Anatolian dialects of Turkish so non Anatolian Turks aren't Turkish? What kind of statement is this? Beshogur (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non sequitur. By that logic, French French would insult Quebec French speakers and other non-Metropolitan French speakers by calling them not French (which they aren't and neither is Turkish Turkish, that's why there is a second Turkish/French in the terms).

And to answer your previous question, whether I created them or not has no importance on whether or not Turkish Turkish should be kept/deleted. My sources are self-explanatory.

Here's two more sources I found with "Turkish Turkish" used in them. [16][17] 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop giving example of other things. There is nothing like Turkish Turkish, and these are the "sources" you have hardly found. Beshogur (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find evidence this phrase is used to refer to the language or any of its dialects. The sources provided by the creator read to me as simply codes for the specific courses. (See, for example, the similar listings for Chinese and French at UC Berkeley). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, however the following 3 sources still use "Turkish Turkish", with the latter 2 sources most definitely not using them as codes. [18][19][20] 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These "sources" are beyond ridiculous. Beshogur (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the government of Sydney, New South Wales uses it per the given [21] -- thus it is a reasonable construct. Turkish is spoken outside of Turkiye with non-Turkiye based dialects, so this is definitely usable. Refine target per Granger. And add {{R from avoided double redirect|Anatolian Turkish}} Turkish of Turkiye could also be created as a redirect with the same target and same Rcat -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The government of Sydney is very reliable source for sure! Anyways, it uses "Southern Turkish" as a branch, then Turkish. Simply stop writing false information. This isn't even a source by the way. Beshogur (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you contend that the governments of Tokyo, NYC, London, Paris, Moscow, etc, are *not* reliable? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read what reliable are. Beshogur (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the existence of a term, not about an event. I would assume sources needed would be more lenient than those needed for an event's occurrence? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such term. Beshogur (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a redirect, it makes sense. And since it's in use, it doesn't really matter if it makes sense or not, either conceptually or grammatically (but if it was grammatically incorrect (aka redundant or pleonasm), so all other redirects mentioned above, such as German German, would be pleonastic/redundancies). Web-julio (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or retarget per anon/Granger. Web-julio (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense what? So no one discovered this until late 2024? Beshogur (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:02, 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 no consensus. However, refine to #chipper based on the support it has got. Jay 💬 20:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting wedge → Golf club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Over two years later, let's try this again: delete per WP:RSURPRISE as unmentioned and per WP:REDLINK per my comments in the previous discussion's nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't it just be refined to #chipper, per the last RfD? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "Putting wedge" is definitely a term associated with golf clubs but since we don't really know where to mention it or what it really refers to, we might as well put it in the bin until the term has an actual definition. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock)[reply]

• Refine to #chipper, as an unofficial, possibly erroneous, but commonly/colloquially used synonym. I can find published attestations for the term's use (in novels and such), but it isn't enough for inclusion in the article itself. But that's fine and plenty enough for a redirect, no inclusion is really needed. The redirect itself will inform someone searching for it: "A putting wedge is more correctly called a chipper." Fieari (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not mentioned at target, time for it to meet the standard fate for such things. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 6 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 Numerically slightly more support for deletion but Fieari's argument for keeping has gone unrefuted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tata (Persian King) → Tata (king of Awan)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There were no Persians at the time of Tata Викидим (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This redirect was actually created by Maziargh in 2010 as a redirect to Awan dynasty, then subsequently made into an article by AnnGWik and since moved to the target of the current redirect (none of that is necessarily a reason to keep, though I will also notify those users of this discussion on their talk pages). There is no Tata on List of monarchs of Persia but I don't know enough about the plausibility of someone (incorrectly) believing this Tata to be Persian to say whether this should be deleted or not. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Tata is a semi-mythical figure, but the Awan dynasty dates to approximately 2000 B.C.. As far as I know (I am no expert), Persians came to Persis and became "Persians" a millennium later. If I am correct, Awan kings could not have ruled Persian people. Викидим (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was more getting at how likely would it be that someone would search for this person in this way, ie that people would think to search for a Persian king. But given the relative obscurity of this person, that question is probably impossible to answer so ultimately I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other if this is deleted. That said I think adding him to Tata (dab page) would be helpful and I will shortly do so, but perhaps you or someone else would like to revise my wording. A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as misleading per the abovementioned findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that almost certainly the only way someone would find this redirect is by using it or following a link (which would likely be piped given the use of a disambiguator) so rather than being misleading, it can be helpful to help someone who is mistaken to find what they are looking for (but see my reply above as to whether that is likely to actually happen). A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of a redirect is not a "factual offering". The argument for deletion is like saying redirects from typos should be deleted because they imply the typo is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, the target is simply not a Persian king. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I echo A7V2's thoughts. As a redirect to Awan dynasty, the redirect was getting views from 2010, which stopped in early 2022. The subsequent views were when the article was being written, and this RfD. Ideally we can argue to delete this since we have a factually titled article now. But Tata (king of Awan) doesn't have any redirects to it. What would be a proper redirect title to indicate a king who ruled some thousand years before his kingdom became part of the "Persian region"? What is a more colloquial name better than Persia to refer to the historial Iran region? Jay 💬 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The place is known as Elam or Susiana. Even (Sumerian king) disambiguation would be less factually incorrect. Викидим (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and tag appropriately as a redirect from a (very plausible) error. A redirect is not an endorsement of accuracy, it is a navigation aide to help those who are looking for something find that thing. If someone doesn't know that a thousand years before Persia that land was known as Awan, this redirect will help them. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:00, 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 Harapanahalli#Railway transportation which resolves the lack of mention issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Harapanahalli railway station → South Western Railway zone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "harapanahalli" at the target article, or any other indication about a "Harapanahalli railway station" at the South Western Railway zone article. The only mention of "harapanahalli railway station" anywhere on Wikipedia is at the overarching article for Harapanahalli, but this article has a good number of problems and only contains two references, so it begs the question whether the railway station needs to be mentioned there either. In any case, it seems that there may need to be a change to either the target, or to the content, or to delete entirely if its not necessary to be included anywhere. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Add mention. Railway stations that verifiably exist (and this one does) are always plausible search terms and are always DUE for a mention on the article about the line and in articles about the settlement they serve. Note also this was a BLAR and should not be deleted without an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm the person who created this page the Harapanahalli Railway Station which is functioning currently six trains are operating through this station please help me to publish this article

Thank you :) Darshan Kavadi (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Each of the three division articles has a list of the stations within the division. These lists appear to be incomplete do I cannot give an appropriate target, but whichever applies would be a good target. Mangoe (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I cleaned up the language at Harapanahalli#Railway Transportation. There are still no sources, so added a {{cn}}. Jay 💬 10:38, 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) 07:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no mention at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by default, unless someone takes the initiative to add a mention themselves. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Significa liberdade and Pppery: Sure there is no mention at the current target, but there was mention at Harapanahalli, and what I mentioned above was, I had cleaned up the languaging at Railway Transportation section that had mention. Jay 💬 13:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Harapanahalli#Railway transportation which is a better target than the South Western Railway zone division even if there was a mention there. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Linjian → Lin Jian  (talk · links · history)

The name, which is that of a town in the Chinese province of Shandong, is being redirected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson with same name. Either it should be deleted or be redirected to the target page I have given.Toadboy123 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE this is a malformed nomination. There is no RfD header on the redirect. The current target of the redirect is Lin Jian, and not that contained in the opening of this section. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lin Jian is definitely the wrong target. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate with a see also to Lin Jian (林剑) and Linjiang (disambiguation); there is Linjian (临涧镇) in Pingyi County, Shandong, China; there is Linjian (林尘镇) in Zijin, Guangdong, China, listed at List of township-level divisions of Guangdong; Chen Linjian listed at 2020–21 and 2018–19 Chinese Basketball Association seasons; -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The first option to think was disambiguate per 65. However, note that the town in Zijin, Guangdong, China, is spelt Linjiang, and another town in Huazhou, Maoming, Guangdong, China (zh:林尘镇) was mistakenly written as Linjian in the list of township-level divisions of Guangdong, but it is actually pronounced Linchen (see also: Huazhou, Guangdong#Towns), which I have corrected, so it is not an entry. Therefore, there are only two valid entries (Linjian as the town in Shandong, and Chen Linjian the basketball player) with zero entries having the actual article, which makes delete the best choice, unless at least one of the article is created. Sun8908 _Talk 16:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Toadboy123: You had edited Linjian to remove the redirect, but you did not provide a new target, which is why your edit was reverted. Who is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson you mention in the nomination? Jay 💬 10:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That person is Lin Jian. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I misunderstood. In the nomination you mentioned.. the target page I have given. Which is that target page? Jay 💬 23:01, 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) 07:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:Sun8908. As far as I can tell, the primary topic is the town in Shandong, which we don't have an article for. I don't think this is a plausible enough search term for Linjiang, Linchen, Lin Jian, or Chen Linjian to be worth a disambiguation page. Best to let the search function do its job until an article about the town in Shandong is created. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:55, 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 No actual argument to change anything has survived the sockstrike. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• サイゴン → Ho Chi Minh City  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Japan and Vietnam have quite an interesting relationship to say the least, but it's probably not enough to warrant a redirect to one of its cities. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Japanese: サイゴン, romanized: Saigon is the old name for Japanese: ホーチミン市, romanized: Hōchimin-ichi, lit. 'Ho Chi Minh City'. So, did the Japanese Occupation Forces during WW2 call it "Saigon", or did they call it something else? It is actually written as Vietnamese: 柴棍, romanized: Sài Gòn, so one would expect that the Japanese would have also written it that way in WW2. Japanese: 柴棍; or did the Japanese rename the city, or pronounce it differently with various Japanese sounds used for these characters? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:53, 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 no consensus. However there was also no support for the current target, hence retargeting to Mongolia (disambiguation) as an alternative. Jay 💬 17:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Ambigous, could be aiming for Mongols (A and S are next to each other on qwerty keyboard). BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BugGhost, ambiguous typo with both "Mongols" (typo by adjacent key substitution) and "Mongolia" (typo by omission) both of which are likely forms of typo to occur -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, this could also just redirect to Mongolia (disambiguation), where appropriate entries could be found for Mongols (subsidiary dab link) and Mongolia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Mongolia (disambiguation) per IP. Pageviews are decent and typo is plausible, so I don't see a reason for deletion, and the dab page has relevant links for both of the likely intended targets. Also (and maybe this is just for me?), in the search results for "Mongola" both Mongolia and Mongols are absent from the first page. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an arbitrary typo, no more deserving a redirect than any other (and not even clear what it's a typo of, as pointed out above). Let Mediawiki search do its job and suggest possible matches. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The search results in this instance aren't helpful, as they don't contain either Mongolia or Mongols, which are surely what the the majority of people who type this are looking for. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, fair enough. But it does find a couple similar targets, and it does match several actual things/people named "Mongola". Probably better to defer to a search here rather than try to guess what the user intended anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All I'm really seeing is Metanarsia mongola and Omweso; other results are surely far too minor to be possible intended targets. Some results are just the word "Mongolia" in other European languages. If we retarget we're assuming it's more likely the intended target was Mongolia or Mongols, and if we delete we're assuming it's more likely there was a different intended target (because we're not giving them any options pointing towards Mongolia or Mongols). I take the former view. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WT has an entry on it but it seems to only be for Italian and Spanish so might not be appropriate in English. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 35.139.154.158. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:16, 6 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. Jay 💬 17:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• History of the United States (2008–2024) → History of the United States (2008–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is the result of a bad page move but I don't think any CSD criteria applies to it. It is the result of an editor writing a new article that states that 2024 ushered a new era into American history. The article has now been moved to Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons Liz gave. Nobody's going to look for an article by that name. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, given the scope of the redirect is present in the target article, and then some starting 2025. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - whether this redirect would be useful is just based on WP:CRYSTALBALL BugGhost🦗👻 08:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here since the date range in the redirect is included in the scope of the target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's true that the date range is contained in the target - my point (which I admittedly didn't phrase well) is that whether this range (2008-2024) is a relevant set of bookends is currently impossible to determine. BugGhost🦗👻 00:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What I'm trying to say is that's not relevant. I've seen several articles with incoming redirects that include date ranges which the target article includes, but is not entirely exclusive to. For example, see the list of incoming redirects to "List of Netflix original films". Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Someone using this search term will find the content they are looking for at the target. We gain nothing by making things harder for them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who would be using this as a search term? Is it generally considered that American history ended in 2024? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No one is suggesting thatAmerican history ended in 2024, but 2008-2024 is covered in the target article. Ultimately, this is harmless. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is a small issue in that, as noted, it isn't causing any harm, however I agree that nobody is likely to type in that specific string of characters in our search - what will most likely happen in such a case is that somebody will start typing in "History of the United States (2..." and then autocomplete options will present. If you do this now, you'll see both the (2004-present) and the (2004-2024), which in my eyes is confusing, especially if I'm a regular reader who doesn't understand Wikipedia's policy on redirects. What's more, this does fall into crystal ball territory, and is a title that makes implications which readers might take as reinforcement that Wikipedia agrees with a particular viewpoint, something which I think would be more helpful to avoid. Any implications about the period demarcations of American history are best left to our sources. ASUKITE 01:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and as an implausible search term, very soon to be obsolete, all of which is reinforced by the fact that this only came about because of a bad move. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find Thryduulf's articulation more convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vendamonia → Mark McMenamin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. A google search combined term and name does not produce notable results. Blethering Scot 21:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted the mentions of taxa, since they are fringe taxa, but they were described by Mark McMenamin (redirect)so they should be mentioned, I’m going to revert those edits Zhenghecaris (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination, it does not need fringe taxa list in his article either. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned anywhere in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Los Angeles. → Los Angeles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• San Francisco. → San Francisco  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:UNNATURAL, the city doesn't have a full stop after it and isn't an abbreviation, L.A. already exists. See the most recent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Canada. where I noted that adding the full stop may suggest its an abbreviation or actually called this and that it could cause confusion with things that actually do start with a full stop though unlikely. Similar redirects like Chicago., Houston. and New York. don't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a useful redirect and agree with above statement.Blethering Scot 21:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:33, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamie Boo Birse → Linux Mint  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target or anywhere in Wikipedia, miseading. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirect is misleading nonsense that doesn't mean anything. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search found that Jamie 'Boo' Birse was the maintainer of Linux Mint KDE Edition c. 2011. JJP_Master (she/they) 14:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No mention in enwiki of Jamie Boo Birse, Boo Birse, or Jamie Birse. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:35, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Currents (2011–present) → Google Currents (news app)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are like 2 google currents and both of them are discontinued, but this redirect links to the one that got discontinued in 2013 instead of the one that got discontinued in 2023 for some reason. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or else retarget to Current § Science and technology. The disambiguator doesn't actually disambiguate here, and it never has, so I don't see a good reason to keep the redirect. But if it is kept, it should be an {{r avoided double redirect}} of Google Currents. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google Currents apparently existed 2011–2013. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:37, 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. The "not mentioned" is, I think adequately explained by Tevildo and Fieari. The name appears to be unambiguous. (non-admin closure) Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]