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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Globalists worldview → Globalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

An unhelpful redirect, and unlikely to be a search term used. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 00:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:RT → Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect unused in mainspace, unclear which template it should redirect, e.g. multiple exist and used for Rotten Tomatoes Indagate (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since "RT" seems so vague in general parlance that it does not seem worth using. RT doesn't redirect to Rotten Tomatoes at all, so we shouldn't worry about that in the template space either. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete RT is so vague it could mean the Russian TV network for all I know. Felicia (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Felicia777: Under which of the criteria for speedy deletion are you proposing to speedy delete this? Speedy deletion can only be used in a small number of predefined scenarios, pages can't just be speedy deleted for no reason. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: too vague. Veverve (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As above, vague. First thing I thought of when I saw this was retweet. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Pioneer Settlement. Jay (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Swan Hill Pioneer Settlement → Swan Hill  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This attraction (which definitely exists [1]) was mentioned at the article until this was removed by Mattinbgn in this edit [2]. Delete unless others feel a mention is justified? A7V2 (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pioneer Settlement, which is an entire article about this attraction. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how I missed this one. Definitely retarget there! A7V2 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. ✗plicit 11:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hobart Function & Conference Centre → Hobart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. Not mentioned at target or anywhere I can find. Wasn't mentioned when the redirect was created either [3]. A7V2 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 restore and retarget. Restored the Hydrographic office article and retargeted both redirects there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• National Hydrographic Office → Indian Naval Hydrographic Department  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• National hydrographic office → List of Member States of the International Hydrographic Organization  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should these target the same place? The Indian NHD department is the only one I've found with any signficant content about a national hydrographic office, but the list includes other offices with this exact name about which we don't have articles (e.g. Oman, which also gets passing mentions elsewhere). Category:National hydrographic offices shows we have articles about similarly named organisations at least some of which this would be a plausible search term. That category notes the lowercase title as the main article, but it has only ever been a redirect. However this revision from 2016 of Hydrographic office was an article with a list. The redirection of that appears to have been done boldly by Boris Kaiser "due to overlap", see Talk:Hydrographic office. I've run out of time to investigate further. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget National Hydrographic Office as in national hydrographic office, as the current target (Indian...) doesn't qualify as an exact homonym. fgnievinski (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Indian article does contain information about a topic with this exact name. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore this revision of Hydrographic office and retarget there. I disagree there is too much overlap, the article was a landing spot for many nation's hydrographic offices that do not have articles. List of Member States of the International Hydrographic Organization is a much narrower article, specific to IHO, that is not formatted to give further information. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and retarget per Tavix, there appears to be enough material on Google Scholar to establish notability for the subject of hydrographic offices in general. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 British Legions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Legion Britanica → Legión británica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

An alternative redirect with correct orthography (Legión británica) now exists. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix double redirect and keep (retarget to British Legions). There was no reason to move the redirect originally at this title to Legión británica. This could have (and should have) been created separately. Clearly this is a valid search term since most in English speaking countries can't easily type letters with accents. No benefit whatsoever comes from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When a search term without diacritics is entered, Wikipedia already redirects to the article with a title containing the diacritics. For example, while Duchâtel is an article, even while Duchatel is not, typing the latter into a search box will still redirect the user to the former page, without the need for a redirect page. Similarly, were Legion Britanica deleted, users would still be redirected to Legión británica were they to type "legion britanica". Therefore, the article Legion Britanica serves no purpose. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• REtarget to British Legion (disambiguation), since it could be referring to the Roman Legio II Britannica -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to British Legions. I would rather not give equal weight to "Roman Legio II Britannica" due to a different spelling and a lack of article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Letter of protest → Diplomatic correspondence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Lemma as such only mentioned once (in a recursive link included in a parenthetic phrase). Hildeoc (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Protesting some entity by writing a letter is a general activity that can apply in all sorts of contexts, and I can't think of an article that would really be a proper place to link. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine to Diplomatic correspondence#Notes where it is mentioned and delink the self-redirect there. This is a {{R from move}}, as the target was at this name for nearly a decade when first created. There was also briefly content added to the redirect later that was immediately blanked and redirected. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is the capitalized form Letter of Protest that targets the same article and is also a {{R from move}}. It should probably be treated the same as the lowercase (and probably should be formally bundled here with a relist). Mdewman6 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and the plurals Letters of protest and Letters of Protest. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all forms of "letters of protest" to Protest where letters are discussed. Add detail there as needed for the diplomatic correspondence. Letters of protest are also filed by employees, etc. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the other redirects mentioned by Mdewman6 were not bundled during the relisting, and it's late for it now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 all. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gold/silver ratio → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Gold-to-silver ratio → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold to silver ratio → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold silver ratio → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold-silver ratio → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold-to-silver ratios → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold to silver ratios → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold/silver ratios → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold-silver ratios → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold silver ratios → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Silver gold ratio → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold–Silver Ratio → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gold-Silver Ratio → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Price ratio between gold and silver → Silver as an investment#Silver price  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

These redirects should be deleted. They are in an XY situation, equally fit to target Silver as an investment or Gold as an investment. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, they specifically target the Silver as an investment#Silver price anchor, which points to a section that does mention the ratio. I'd say at the very least keep the first five as reasonable formats with Google hits, neutral on the rest (plural "ratios" seems a bit odd, as does capitalized Silver and the dash, while after a brief search I can't immediately find anything that calls it the "silver gold" ratio with silver first). eviolite (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've fixed the listed target per a request (permalink) at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks (and fixed the list, too). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since only the silver article contains any relevant content there is no X-Y problem - these redirect should never target an article which doesn't even mention the gold-silver ratio. As it stands these redirects get searchers to the content they are looking for so I see no reason to delete. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 192. There is no WP:XY issue at play, Gold as an investment does not describe this ratio. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Eng (letter). The discussion was bordering on no consensus, but given the absence of support for the status quo, retargeting to Eng (letter), the only option to receive support from more than one editor, seems preferable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• N, → Voiced velar nasal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to be a non-standard representation of the IPA character "ŋ", and doesn't appear in conventional remappings like X-SAMPA. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Eng (letter). I think this is a plausible search term. Nevertheless, I would certainly be fine with deletion if others favor that. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the comma meant to be a visual cue for the downward hook of the letter? In that case, it's a bit more plausible for the (noticeably rarer) n with comma/cedilla below Ņ. – Uanfala (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the goal was a way to represent the Greek letter using a standard keyboard (a lowercase n plus a comma, so "n,"). Hence, if kept, retarget to the article about the letter rather than the sound it represents. Based on the location of the comma, I think it's closer to Eng than a cedilla under an N, but I don't feel strongly, and maybe the ambiguity and low plausibilty suggest deletion would be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that both the hook and the cedilla appear under the letter, and the cedilla looks more like a comma than a hook, then I think Ņ would be a much better target. That would also match C, (which redirects to Ç), though there doesn't seem to be corresponding redirects for most of the other cedilla versions of letters, like D, -> Ḑ/D̦. – Uanfala (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But Ņ is just a redirect to Cedilla (Ç being much, much more notable than Ņ). I agree we should try to treat these analogously, but as you say, ŋ is much more prevalent than Ņ. Retargeting a specific letter with a comma to cedilla doesn't seem very solid. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Eng (letter). I acknowledge that cedilla is a potentially a closer match strictly speaking, but I also agree that ŋ is a much more common term and more likely to be searched for. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to ņ. The cedilla looks a lot like a comma. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 19:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ņ is a redirect. Do you mean retarget to Cedilla? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 02:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate (drafted) per above. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 23:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think disambiguating is a good idea here: n followed by a comma is at best a plausible search term that a creative reader may try out, it's a search aid, not a proper term whose meanings we can have a dab page elucidating. If it's genuinely ambiguous (which I still doubt) then deletion is preferable. – Uanfala (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Faster than Thunder: You voted twice. What is your current stance? Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disambiguate (drafted) per above. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I understand how to get to ņ due the c, example, but I think ņ is too rare to be plausible for that usage. I might be okay with a redirect to Eng (letter) if it can be shown that n, has been used as an approximation for it, but I'm just not seeing it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist for further input (as discussion is still up in the air) and to finally close the March 25th log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 11:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retray → Geometry Dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kowareta → Geometry Dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Polargeist → Geometry Dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Sonic Wave Infinity → Geometry Dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Sakupen Circles → Geometry Dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These redirects are titles of non-notable levels from the game, and are not mentioned at all on the target. These redirects also seem to constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE. EDM fan 2 (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even play geometry dash? I am a member of the community and these levels are some of the most well-known or most downloaded. It'll be hard to find references but I think they're a good start. Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jishiboka1: It does not matter whether or not I play the game, but I definitely do know many levels from the game. What I know is that these levels are not likely covered in any reliable sources, and even if these levels are popular within the game, they are unlikely to be well known outside the game's community. EDM fan 2 (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Levels that lack notability outside the game's community. For example, a Google search for "Sonic Wave Infinity" does not show coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the game's community (at least in the first three pages of search results). Twotwice^talk 23:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: no mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Despite playing the game myself, none of these would be viable search terms. Besides, there are no such redirects as The Golden, Silent Clubstep, Trueffet, SARY NEVER CLEAR, etc.

It could be of use that "kowareta" translates to "broken" in Japanese, so a trans-language redirect may be useful for that specific word. However, I would fully endorse deleting the others. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 11:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:41 → Wikipedia:WikiProject Bush family  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The redirect should be diverted to Wikipedia:April Fools because of the Bush WikiProject being in a draft state, and its lack of page view compared to the April 1 page. Also, Wikipedia:4-1 (or variations) directs to the April 1 page. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NotReallySoroka:, WP:45, WP:46, WP:44, WP:43. Sahaib (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaib, all your examples can be construed as an unequivocal reference to the Presidential WikiProjects (e.g. no other topics in the WP namespace can be abbreviated to "43"). However, those are cases of WP:OTHERSTUFF because unlike them, 41 has another topic that "competes" with it. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. Matches an established pattern of shortcut redirects that I don't think it's worth disrupting for the sake of another April fool's redirect. I don't think it's plausible that "41", "4-1" and "4/1" would be regularly confused and the nominator has provided no evidence of confusion, and the two redirects that this is potentially confusable with, WP:4-1 and WP:4/1 have zero actual uses. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no interests in disturbing 43 to 46. Notwithstanding the jocular nature of April Fools, the Project page for April 1 has more views and notability than a draft WikiProject. As for "41", "4-1", and "4/1", it makes sense since if you remove the "-" or "/", you get "41". "4-1" is listed as a shortcut to Wikipedia:April Fools on that page. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How many people write dates as a long string of numbers with no separators? I've never seen it done in normal writing. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Better to keep the pattern. Why are we still talking about April Fools when it's almost May? I'm one of those people who quite likes April Fools on Wikipedia (not to say that I like every individual joke on it), but... Who cares? It's one day a year. It should not be taking up our time the rest of the year. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bush Sr has been referred to as 41. On the other hand, April Fools does not because dates are not formatted in this fashion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 G6. Bot errors are covered by the unambiguously created in error clause of G6, so there's no need to complain about bureaucracy here. 🙂 -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Biochim Biophys Acta Specized Sect Enzymol Subj → Biochimica et Biophysica Acta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Biochim Biophys Acta Specized Sect Lipids Relat Subj → Biochimica et Biophysica Acta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Biochim Biophys Acta Specized Sect Nucleic Acids Relat Subj → Biochimica et Biophysica Acta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Enzymol. Subj. → Biochimica et Biophysica Acta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Lipids Relat. Subj. → Biochimica et Biophysica Acta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Nucleic Acids Relat. Subj. → Biochimica et Biophysica Acta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• IUCN/SSC Primate Spec.ist Group Newsl. → Primate Conservation (journal)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• IUCN/SSC Primate Specist Group Newsl → Primate Conservation (journal)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Indian J Med Specities → List of Medknow Publications academic journals#I  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Indian J. Med. Spec.ities → List of Medknow Publications academic journals#I  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• J Health Specties → List of Medknow Publications academic journals#J  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• J Indian Acad Dent Specist Res → List of Medknow Publications academic journals#J  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• J. Health Spec.ties → List of Medknow Publications academic journals#J  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• J. Indian Acad. Dent. Spec.ist Res. → List of Medknow Publications academic journals#J  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

These should have been R3'd but WP:BURO is here to make sure we're wasting time on these. So here we are, debating whether or not we should delete a bunch of implausible redirects created by bot who's logic has since been tweaked and won't be recreated again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider merging em? By doggy looking those titles, many of them are still useful as sections of generic articles, and may still be useful for fans of {{Wikidata-redirect}} usages. And I would love to warn you that your nomination results at least two (edit conflict)s for my nomination above. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with these redirects is that my bot (User:TokenzeroBot) mistakenly replaced "Special" with "Spec." even when part of a longer word, resulting in non-sense "Spec.ized" and "Spec.ities." So I don't think they're useful in any way. This is part of a larger effort by Headbomb to have meaningful redirects from journal title abbreviations, so variants without this problem are already created or will be created soon. Tokenzero (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would you merge redirects? they have no content except the page title and target. I don't see what there is to merge or how you would do it? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete them all. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tokenzero --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Almost like WP:G7s at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: These can't be R3'd due to the creation date but since they are just a mess left over from a malfunctioning bot they could be speedy deleted under criterion WP:G6 as a page unambiguously created in error, see {{db-error}}. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under criterion G6 as pages created in error by a malfunctioning bot. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 11:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mucic → Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Besides being an unlikely misspelling, due to the existence of Mucic acid, a reader could potentially look at that article then try to search for "Mucic" on Wikipedia, and then unexpectedly arrive at this redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment: For what it's worth, I just discovered that Wiktionary:mucic exists. Steel1943 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fine to let the search tool do its job on this one. Second choice: retarget to Mucic acid, which is a more suitable target than Music. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agreed mucic acid would be a better target, but search is more than sufficient there. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.