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 Pacific (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pacific, The → The Pacific (miniseries)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I'm in two minds about this one, which is why I'm nominating it here instead of boldly retargetting. My first instinct was that this should match The Pacific and go to Pacific Ocean. But maybe the sort name formatting implies a stronger connection to the TV series, since a TV series is more likely to be formatted this way than an alternate (shorter) name for an ocean. Thoughts? Cremastra (u — c) 16:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to just change and have it follow the precedent of The Pacific. I don't think the formatting makes that much of a difference. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pacific. I can see the argument that Pacific, The has an affinity with a title, but I don't think it's stronger enough to overcome the very strong primary topic here. (Though in general this is a weird redirect and I don't see the point of having it). Rusalkii (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Pacific (disambiguation); this formulation would usually want titles that are "The Pacific" and not the ocean. There being at least two uses on Wikipedia, this TV show, and The Pacific EP -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Pacific Ocean? Or to Pacific (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the Pacific disambiguation page style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to DAB per the IP. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:34, 4 February 2025 (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 14:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Electronic literature → Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic literature  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Discouraged XNR. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Useful for those interested in finding the wikiproject.--Ipigott (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR to non reader content. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No special reason why this WP:XNR would be useful to a new user who is unfamiliar with namespaces (which is the usual rationale for keeping XNRs). If you know what a WikiProject is, you have some familiarity with wikipedia's backend culture already, and can be expected to know what a namespace is for. Fieari (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a good XNR. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XNR and nom. Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2025 (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. I guess technically this was refined to the new section #Extreme values during the discussion, which is the portion of the article that covers MAXINT. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MAXINT → Integer (computer science)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "maxint" at the target article. Without ever defining this search term, this does not seem to be a useful redirect for navigating to computer science integers. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it by mentioning MAXINT at the target article? Or suggest an alternative target where it is described. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is "create the content before creating the redirect", thereby defaulting to delete per WP:BURDEN, as I don't see anywhere where the "maxint variable" is well-covered on Wikipedia. Only appears on 4 total pages, none of them great fits (and I don't think the FastCode project is worth targeting with this term). At this point in time, no page on Wikipedia seems to suitably describe "MAXINT", to a degree of being satisfactory to incoming searchers that might come across this redirect. Anyone, at any time, is able to add material related to "MAXINT" if they so choose, rendering any possible verdict of "deletion per no material" obsolete and recreateable if the previous RfD no longer applies. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I agree that the person creating the redirect is responsible for checking that the target actually mentions the term. I assume that editor has been notified. However it is not entirely unreasonable to expect a mention of MAXINT at Integer (computer science). Still, should be checked, as if it is mentioned, a more specific target is likely to be possible, such as R to anchor. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An R to anchor would certainly be the best way to deliver people to the content directly pertinent to their search. I think that's a great idea. For what it's worth, reading below, it seems that a mention used to exist, but was removed. If that mention comes back, the redirect becomes fine, but it can always be removed again as long as it remains unsourced. But I have no strong feelings towards forcing material into the article just to keep a redirect that can (generally) always be recreated, so anyone who wants to talk about it at the page in question certainly can. Anchoring to a (sourced) mention would be icing on the cake to make this redirect next-to bulletproof. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, MAXINT is the largest integer value that can be directly represented by the operating system based on the available number of bits, so Integer (computer science) is a very plausible target if there is nothing better . · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)My external searches confirm what you've said about the definition. But how would anyone figure that out from the target article? How does someone who searches for "maxint" ascertain that from the content of the page, if "MAXINT" is never the subject of any sentence on the entire site? FastCode suggests that "MaxInt returns the maximum of two integer values". These are definitely different per WP:SMALLDETAILS, but if the details of "MAXINT" are never listed anywhere, it becomes hard to justify not just pointing this at FastCode too. At the very least, FastCode is the only place that even attempts to discuss "maxint" as a term, anywhere. It would be nice to have "MAXINT" mentioned and discussed somewhere (and Integer (computer science) might be a good location to host this), but the onus of doing so is upon the one who creates the redirect to begin with. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I have added a mention, but am not sufficiently confident that it is entirely correct or complete. It should be good enough until someone gets around to improving it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAXINT should be mentioned somewhere (I did a search and it seems to not be present in any articles). A brief and inadequate mention was in 2010 (diff). That was removed by Pburka in 2013 (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a mention, but it may not be complete or entirely correct, and needs a ref. Better than nothing I hope · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the precise symbol MAXINT is used in any common programming language. C has INT_MAX, in Java it's Integer.MAX_VALUE, Pascal has MaxInt, and Python's got sys.maxint. The concept of a maximum value for numeric types is common, but that specific name isn't used. At best, this is a redirect from a misspelling...but of what? pburka (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added them to Integer (computer science) § Extreme values. Paradoctor (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Python no longer has sys.maxint since Python 3, released 2008, 16 years ago. Even if it wasn't removed, it's the wrong capitalization.

Delete because this capitalization isn't used by any major programming language. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a requirement for redirects. And how is BASIC not a major language? Paradoctor (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmallBASIC is a single (relatively obscure) implementation of BASIC. This new "Extreme values" section is likely to become a long list of equivalent constants in dozens of other obscure hobby languages (e.g. Turing). On the other hand, this page is already a dumping ground for this kind of trivia, so maybe it's no big deal. pburka (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The point is, the term is discussed at the target, nowhere else, and there is no policy-based reason to delete. Paradoctor (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did major surgery on Peter's starter, including a sourced mention of MAXINT Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably good to keep atp. Thanks for the help in addressing this unique topic, all ^^ Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:06, 27 January 2025 (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 Turn into article. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of visual effects companies → Visual effects  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No such list of visual effects companies exists at the target article; this is currently a misleading redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes and Soetermans: The list was deleted in this revision. I don't think WP:NOTDIRECTORY justifies the deletion of this list; should it be restored? Jarble (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might a standalone list be warranted here? — Anonymous 15:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Create standalone list per Anonymous with the removed contents Jarble mentioned. Jay 💬 17:45, 4 February 2025 (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. ✗plicit 00:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• First Gilded Age → Gilded Age  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No RSes have ever referred to it as the First Gilded Age, at least that I have seen. Only ever Gilded Age. guninvalid (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean keep: I can't say much about this topic, but given that there is a Second Gilded Age, it would make sense that someone might use the search term 'First Gilded Age'. Further, there have been 30 page views in the past 30 days, which is not insignificant. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Significa, above, with the addendum that a view per day is actually quite high for a redirect towards a less popular article. Two per month might be enough to keep, ~30 per month shows consistent usage and need, remembering that "it's useful to someone" is a valid keep reason for a redirect, and WP:CHEAP applies. Fieari (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Siginifica's arguments. Onikaburgers (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Portal:Nintendo → Portal:Video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Nintendo is a very minor aspect of this portal, with little to no mention of the company or its products 99% of the time. Therefore, anyone trying to access a Nintendo portal would be very disappointed to be redirected to the Video Games portal. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This redirect fools readers into believing an exclusive portal for Nintendo content exists. Has no history. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Giant weevil → Sipalinus gigas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No evidence this is the common name; vague term too. Cremastra (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Medium-sized seeds → Seed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

are sunflower seeds medium-sized? are avocado seeds medium-sized? did twitter lie about there being other prizes inside as a ploy to make me eat avocados? none of this is defined in the target, and results gave me either procedurally generated games like miney crafta (you know, as in "world generation seed"), or seeds of literally all sizes. created as a stub in 2012, but ain't no one scramblin' to restore one unsourced sentence consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is certainly a strange title. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and QuicoleJR. Further, we do not currently have redirects for Large-sized seeds or Small-sized seeds, making this an odd one-off. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the "one unsourced sentence" in question:

"Medium-sized seeds is a seeds that is only medium sized"

Notice the "is a seeds" part. That ain't correct grammar, chief. (also, "that is only medium sized" might be correct grammar but within the context of Wikipedia it just sounds artificial).

Nevertheless, delete as "medium-sized" is incredible vague. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed, too vague. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all, created as unsourced one-off with vague definition VolatileAnomaly (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (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 Demographics of the Netherlands. Jay 💬 21:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• People of the Netherlands → Dutch people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect was brought up when I listed Dutch peoples at RfD. The Dutch are an ethnic group whose members are not exclusively confined to the Netherlands, while not all people living in the Netherlands are Dutch. Therefore, this should redirect to Demographics of the Netherlands, as Cameroonians redirects to Demographics of Cameroon. — Anonymous 19:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There appear to be discrepancies in how these redirects work. For example, People of the United States redirects to Americans, People of the United States redirects to British people, and People of Thailand redirects to Thai people. These were the first three I tried, and they all first with the existing target. If we retarget, it would likely be worthwhile to make sure this is consistent across all countries. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The American and British articles are more focused on nationality than ethnicity, and both countries are fundamentally multi-ethnic, so I think the current targets for the two redirects you brought up are logical. The Thai one is the odd one out, and I agree that that one should probably be retargeted. — Anonymous 00:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your point. To move away from more multiethnic countries, I provide the following: People of India redirects to Indian people, People of Kenya redirects to Demographics of Kenya, People of Malaysia redirects to Malaysians, People of Venezuela redirects to Venezuelans, People of Indonesia redirects to Indonesians... Again, the overarching point is that we would need more consistency across redirects. I'm fine with redirecting all to Demographics of X, especially since I don't think it would be appropriate to have a guessing game of which countries we consider multiethnic and which we don't. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the late reply, but I would also like to note that some of them like Thai people and German people are complicated because they are both ethnic groups and terms for citizens of certain countries, irrespective of ethnicity. I think ethnicity should take priority in these cases, as opposed to Dutch people and Netherlanders (I now realise this one probably needs to be listed too), which have distinct meanings. — Anonymous 17:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KWHY-TY → KSCN-TV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible typo of "KWHY-TV". The target KWHY-TV became KSCN-TV in 2024, and another station is about to become KWHY (no suffix), so this would need to be retargeted. No need to retain. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not sure how this implausible typo redirect has lasted for nearly 20 years. "Y" and "V" may look similar, but do not sound alike or are close enough on the keyboard to be easily mixed up. (It might have taken a call sign shuffle to get this on anyone's radar, but this could have theoretically been dealt with years ago.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 3648 → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unmentioned in target article. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, along with 3646 and 3647. Not part of the article. win8x (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This specific year is unmentioned, and we do not need a redirect for every year in the far future. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Drake end josh → Drake & Josh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible variation. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cincy rweds → Cincinnati Reds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible typo. DELETE. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. User would have to skip over the E to get to the W, then go back to the E. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even if "reds" was spelled correctly, "Cincy" might prove to be a problem

Delete The only thing stopping this redirect is the weird spelling of "reds". User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• South Korea national kho kho team → Kho Kho World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently created redirect to a target that lists the South Korean men's and women's teams separately as participants. While the men's team never had a page, the women's team redirect was deleted today at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 20#South Korea women's national kho kho team. Delete as there is no useful information about the generic team as such. Jay 💬 15:31, 27 January 2025 (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 14:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Wii-exclusive titles → List of Wii games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The page in question is a "list of Wii games". While the list might feature some games which are "exclusive" to the Wii, many are not, and redirecting a specific set of "Wii-exclusives" to the general article is nothing short of misleading with zero context. This page contains history, but as a redirect it is unhelpful at this time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:42, 20 January 2025 (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 14:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. i'm not one to consider metacritic a reliable source, much less the only source in something, and not even used to prove their wii exclusivity. if someone wants this list to exist, it's better off just recreated consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:03, 28 January 2025 (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 14:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Child survivors → One Thousand Children  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect could apply to numerous topics, and I'm not sure trying to create a DAB would even be useful. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this appears to be a descriptive phrase rather than a proper name, and the phrase describes far more than the current target. I agree that "children who survived something" is a poor topic for a disambiguation page. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hopelessly ambiguous with no good target, with a dab page being unhelpful to say the least. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Vague, children have survived many things. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ambiguous. A dab is theoretically on the table, but I'm doubtful a good one could be drafted. Fieari (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous responses. Carguychris (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2025 (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 Sulfur vulcanization#Cure package. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cure package → CARE Package  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Cure package" is not mentioned at the target. According to Brittanica, 'cure package' may also refer to a type of rubber additive. There are also uses, as well. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Sulfur vulcanization#Cure package. Googling "cure package" shows no results relating to CARE packages. I am bad at usernames (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Sulfur vulcanization#Cure package per I am bad at usernames. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:30, 27 January 2025 (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 14:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• V., Hugo → Victor Hugo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Generally, community consensus seems to lean towards deleting redirects with unnecessary punctuation. Therefore, I'm suggesting we do that here. Anonymous 04:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not just unnecessary, but nonstandard/incorrect, as it makes it look like someone with a last name of V. and first name Hugo. No significant views either. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hugo (name) (a DAB) - The comma is meaningful, and generally should be read as an attempt to actually find a "Hugo V." as opposed to "V. Hugo". Examples from the Hugo (name) disambiguation page include the possibilities of Hugo Alves Velame, Hugo Vázquez, two people named Hugo Viana, Hugo Vieira, and Hugo Miguel Fernandes Vieira. I usually suggest making a DAB in these cases, but I think the existing DAB is better at this time. Fieari (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is still a bad option. It's an extraordinarily unlikely search term (backed up by the lack of page views), and per WP:PANDORA, it would suggest creation of redirects of the form "Last initial, First name", which would all be equally useless. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and IP 35. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an odd search string regardless of whether the reader intends "Hugo" as a first name or a last name. If Hugo (name) is the best we can do, I think we're better off deleting and letting the reader look at search results or try a different search term. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TV Tropes. Jay 💬 15:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TVTROPES → Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not TV Tropes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I thought of disambiguating this redirect but i was worried that someone's gonna revert it as "not needed". For this reason i had to RfD it instead. You have only three choices: either keep this redirect as it is now, retarget it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TV Tropes, or disambiguate it with containing only the two following pages:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not TV Tropes
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TV Tropes

Do not delete this redirect nor propose to do so. 67.209.130.107 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RSP entry. It makes much more sense as a shortcut for the essay about "not being TV Tropes" to be WP:NOTTVTROPES (which is already a shortcut for it), and for the shortcut to RSP to be WP:(name of source) similar to virtually all others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to RSP. This formatting aligns with other sources over at RSP, and I feel like NOTTVTROPES is a bit of an EGG. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2025 (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 duo to redirect location. This is not a permanent solution, but there is general consensus that the duo's name should at least should have the exclamation mark removed. Further primary topic issues can be handled as a separate RM; it fits better under the purview of that process, not RFD. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bobbysocks → Bobbysocks!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect to primary topic Bobby sock. WP:SMALLDETAILS is insufficient here. 162 etc. (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Bobbysocks! is the primary target for "bobbysocks" without the space, the WP:SMALLDETAILS are totally sufficient. Add a hatnote to Bobbysocks! if desired, bobby socks with a space points to bobby sock as a plural. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bobbysocks (one word) is literally in the dictionary. I'll also note that Bobby sock gets the higher pageviews of the two. Is the Norwegian duo's notability really high enough for a primary topic here? 162 etc. (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added a {{redirect}} hatnote (here) before reverting the edit, as I didn't see that the previous hatnote was removed for the purposes of this RfD. I think that this is a WP:TWOOTHER situation with no clear primary topic and a disambiguating hatnote at each page serves navigation well enough. ⇌ Synpath 23:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but actually Bobbysocks! needs to be moved to this title (without the exclamation) to match nearly every provided source and google search result. Grk1011 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget to Bobby sock which is the primary topic. This current target is not. It is primarily an alternate spelling of the sock type -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Grk1011, Move Bobbysocks! to Bobbysocks; swap the pages and put a hatnote on Bobbysocks. — TheThomanski | t | c | 17:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I second (or third) TheThomanski: do not retarget to bobby sock, instead move the musical duo to Bobbysocks without the exclamation mark. I have never seen the exclamation mark in use, and it is not used in reference encyclopedias either https://snl.no/Bobbysocks Geschichte (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When determining a primary topic, we consider pageviews and long-term notability. The Norwegian duo appears to fail both of those criteria. 162 etc. (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Bobbysocks! to Bobbysocks. I believe the exclamation point within the title stems from the typography used invariably on single and album releases by the duo (see image search for the group for examples). However I believe we should treat this article title in the same way as other similar titles, and that MOS:TMRULES would seem to apply here, alongside the fact that the majority of reliable sources list the group without the exclamation mark. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2025 (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 14:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ass pennies → Upright Citizens Brigade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Ass Pennies" appears to be a skit by UCB (see here). However, the skit is not mentioned at the UCB article, and the capitalization is not appropriate for a proper noun. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose we should probably delete this gem per nom ...hopefully without raising the ire of the Ass Crack Bandit. — Anonymous 05:01, 27 January 2025 (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 Religious fanaticism#Christianity. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Protestant extremism → Violent extremism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:RETURNTORED as a probably notable topic that isn't mentioned at the target. — Anonymous 01:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning retarget to Religious fanaticism#Christianity, which is where Christian extremism points, and which mentions Protestants. BD2412 T 04:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning retarget to Religious fanaticism#Christianity per BD. However, it's worth noting that Catholic extremism does not exist; Jewish extremism redirects to Jewish fundamentalism; Buddhist extremism redirects to Buddhism and violence; and Hindu extremism redirects to Hindu terrorism. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2025 (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).