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 Phenoxy herbicide#Resistance. The one non-struck delete !vote seemed to be ok with keeping/retargeting if a mention was added, which it was. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Resistance to fenoxaprop-P-ethyl → Phenoxy herbicide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Compound (w/ structure) is mentioned at target, but not resistance to it. Incoming links should be made to the just fenoxaprop-P-ethyl instead of this phrase if enwiki has no information about resistance, otherwise it is astonishing. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: unhelpful, misleading, and WP:ASTONISHing. Keep per Invasive Spices. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Links should not WP:REDYES be made to the herbicide article in preference to this even if red. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the link at the target to link to the compound and not the title of these redirects, so as to not be astonishing. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't have (and I would not support) such "Resistance to X" links where a pesticide article X does discuss resistance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Phenoxy herbicide § Resistance. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Quinclorac#Resistance. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Resistance to quinclorac → Quinclorac  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Resistance is not discussed in the target article. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: unhelpful, misleading, and WP:ASTONISHing. Keep per Invasive Spices. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not useful for our readers --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't have (and I would not support) such "Resistance to X" links where a pesticide article X does discuss resistance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Quinclorac § Resistance. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that a section about this has been added. Deletion seems unnecessary in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine to Quinclorac#Resistance now that this suitable section exists. A7V2 (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury per criterion R3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukraine ukraine ukraine → First impeachment of Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely search term if you were searching for the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I remember Trump tweeting "Russia, Russia, Russia" alot, but not a triple Ukraine. Unlikely search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I created it. If you listen to DJT he cites "Russia, Russia, Russia" and "Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine" as hoaxes so someone listening to a Trump speech may google it. --Volvlogia (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that it's a useful Wiki search term, even when uncapitalized and without commas? I genuinely don't think those following the saga would be using that search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nonsense. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if this were a plausible search term for this topic (which is doubtful), the target doesn't mention it so the link is tenuous. This redirect is only going to get more surprising as time goes on as people become less familiar with the less notable things Trump has said in the past. As a note, Trump isn't the only person ([1]) or even the only politician ([2]) to have been reported emphatically repeating "Ukraine" in the news. Emphatic repetition isn't a uniquely Trumpian characteristic. – Scyrme (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Warehouse (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Warehouse → The Warehouse Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The Warehouse is a new Chicago landmark site recently added to the List of Chicago Landmarks. I would like to create a page for The Warehouse i.e. the new Chicago landmark, but it currently redirects to The Warehouse Group page. I am a relatively inexperienced editor so thought I would ask for guidance here. Thanks in advance for your assistance and support. IntegrityPen (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can go into source mode (the wikitext editor) and replace all text with your article, like I did here. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the redirect to draft space (Draft:The Warehouse) and will start an article on your behalf. Just take it from there. Schwede66 07:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, IntegrityPen, I see that there is an existing article for this building at Warehouse (nightclub). I can't imagine that you'd want to set up another one in parallel to the nightclub. Schwede66 07:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Now we have a redlink where there shouldn't be one. This is a WP:PTOPIC question: is The Warehouse Group the primary topic for the term, or should it point to Warehouse (disambiguation) (which includes other uses of the term)? - Eureka Lott 14:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that the target article exists already, I have restored the redirect. Schwede66 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the disambiguation page and list uses there -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Warehouse (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to be dab page. I have considered whether The Warehouse Group is the primary topic. Surprisingly, the long-closed Warehouse (nightclub) reaches two-thirds of the pageviews of the New Zealand retailer. Together with all the other entries, the retailer thus doesn't cut it as the primary topic for me and retargeting is the right action. Schwede66 19:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Consensus is clear. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WPT:TEN → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

the [[WT:]] namespace alias already exists. Redundant and unused. This is the only page in the WPT: pseudo-namespace, which does not have community support. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Skynxnex (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Redirect it instead to WT:TEN. Didn't know it was a pseudo-namespace, especially being the only page therein. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WT:TEN a) doesn't exist and b) would result in a double redirect regardless. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Edward-Woodrow, would WT:TEN be a reasonable redirect for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see why not. [[WT:]] is an automatic namespace (e.g., WT:Redirects for discussion), like [[WT:]], so it would be created at Wikipedia talk:TEN. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WT:TEN is already taken. I created WT:Ten, but was deleted immediately. Tried WT:tns, WT:tes, WT:tenn, but all are taken. Any suggestions on a shortcut redirect? Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WT:TEN:  Done. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. But create a WT:TEN redirect as the proper namespace. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom with no prejudice on creating the proper WT:TEN redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create Wikipedia talk:TEN as a replacement. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I saw the header, and thought that this was going to be about "Top Ten" lists... - jc37 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 without prejudice against creating a broad-concept article at this title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Transitional work → Workforce Investment Act of 1998  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Transitional job → Unemployment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Transitional jobs → Unemployment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Neither of these redirects' target articles contain the redirects' phrases or the word "transitional". Both target articles each include one instance of the word "transitions", but not necessarily in reference to "jobs" or "work". I've bundled these together due to their edit histories; about 15 years ago, these all essentially targeted the same place, but over time, editors and bots found a way to both have these redirects target different targets and leave editors scratching their heads trying to figure out how or why these terms would redirect readers to either of the current target articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Transitional work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see frictional unemployment, underemployment, or temporary work as equally good targets, at least based on my presumption of what "transitional work" would mean. Perhaps some sort of disambiguation is needed? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go due to the lack ot participation. Notified of this discussion at the talk pages of Presidentman's equally good targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I like Presidentman's disambiguation. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If there are no sources using these words in the target articles, than these terms shouldn't point to them. Additionally, "transition" generally means change from A to B, and so this seems ridiculous to even be used for employment terms. To my knowledge, people don't get a middle job to help them change from one to another; they may start an apprenticeship, but I don't believe this would ever be described as a "transition" job.---Avatar317^(talk) 05:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguation per Presidentman seems reasonable. I would add to that disambiguation page vocational rehabilition (which mostly means easing the partially disabled back into the workforce) and rehabilitative employment (finding usually short-term work for ex-convicts), but I'm not sure we have any articles on these. Maybe we do; the terminology seems to vary wildly by agency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete judging from a Google search the most common usage of the term is for when an injured or sick employee returns to work and is given adjusted duties to account for the injury or sickness.[3] That's not covered by any of the targets suggested above. I don't think the phrase "transitional work" really applies to many of them, for example temporary work usually isn't used to transition from something to something else. Nor do we seem to have any evidence that anybody uses these phrases as synonyms for those terms. Hut 8.5 12:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't actually an ambiguous topic, it's that the topic is (supposedly) covered by multiple articles. Therefore, this would be a broad-concept article, not a disambiguation. However, I'm in agreement with Hut 8.5 that even if we list these various articles, this isn't really covered by any of those options. I'd prefer to see a WP:REDLINK-like deletion, freeing the page for an article if anyone is up for the challenge. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete now and create a BCA later. On the pre-BLAR content of Transitional work, it was an essay and would be deleted anyway per the BLAR comment Even if it's not, it still reads like an essay and would get deleted anyway. The article was created by a newbie, most of whose edits were limited to one day in 2008. After WarthogDemon's initial attempts to BLAR the essay, Dreadstar (he is no more) may have retargeted it to the current target per this discussion. Jay 💬 18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. If the content in question is added to the article, feel free to recreate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2023 USSC ethics disclosures → Supreme Court of the United States#Ethics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is an unlikely and misleading search term. The reference discussing "disclosures" at the target is from 2022, not 2023, so the specificity of the year makes this problematic and unhelpful. The section is about revelations of failures to disclose details from prior years that came to light more recently, and does not include information about ethical disclosures made in 2023 as this redirect would imply. The only content related to 2023 were the revelations about Clarence Thomas, which are described in more detail at Clarence Thomas#Nondisclosure of gifts, real estate sale, and wife's income. Finally, USSC is not a common initialism for the target, at least not as prevalent as SCOTUS. All of this combined makes this unlikely to be useful. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USSC isn't as common as SCOTUS but that doesn't mean its use can't be anticipated. I agree with the rest of your points. Largoplazo (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's certainly a valid initialism, but unlike SCOTUS, USSC is ambiguous. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different USCC with ethics disclosures in 2023? You haven't nominated USSC for deletion but 2023 USSC ethics disclosures. – Invasive Spices (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The word revelations is 7th in the target section. The reference is not from 2022 but 2023 https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1174057179/supreme-court-congress-ethical-hearing
• The section is about revelations of failures to disclose details from prior years that came to light more recently, and The only content related to 2023 were the revelations about Clarence Thomas You're making my case for me.
• The next section includes mounting ethics scandals cited by https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1172083875/chief-justice-roberts-declines-to-testify-before-senate-panel (including trips on yachts and private jets and disclose the sale of properties).

Invasive Spices (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as there has been no further input after two relists, I'll just reiterate that there is nothing about ethics disclosures made in 2023 at the target, making this redirect misleading and meriting deletion. The section in fact describes nondisclosures. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Largoplazo: Would you like to summarize your opinion based on the three weeks of discussion? Jay 💬 08:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Seven justices released financial disclosure forms in June 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/07/politics/supreme-court-justices-financial-disclosures/index.html They submit disclosures, the problem is that they aren't complete. The redirect at least accurately describes the context; the context is just missing from the text. It should be added, rather than deleting the redirect. So, preferably, Keep after adding the relevant context. Largoplazo (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's been a month since this RfD has started and nobody seems to want to add the content in question. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sri kothanda ramaswamy temple , kottar , nagercoil → Sri Kothanda Ramaswamy Temple  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Edgeroi , New South Wales → Edgeroi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These two redirects represent the only two titles on Wikipedia with a space directly prior to a comma. Both of these redirects are WP:COSTLY and implausible due to the space before the comma. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh (or weak keep, I guess). Harmless, and redirects are cheap. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. By themselves implausible, and they also potentially open a Pandora's box of other redirects which add unnecessary spaces; the precedent they set for other redirects isn't cheap. – Scyrme (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and per Scyrme. These are bad to have around. BD2412 T 15:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and Scyrme. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the 1st was only at the title for around 5 minutes and the 2nd was never at this title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Scyrme. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 19:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep cheap per Edward-Woodrow -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete – don't like the precedent these set, especially when there's just two of them. In a vacuum, they'd be harmless, but I think the concern of bad precedent outweighs the very small potential usefulness. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Typical WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Nāga#Indonesia. Jay 💬 05:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Javanese Dragon → Dragon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. For the history of the redirect, it looks like this redirect was a stub article for about a day in 2012 prior to being merged (per this edit) into the target article; however, it does not look like there's anything in the target article that resembles what was in this redirect formerly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest retargeting to Mythology of Indonesia. This article seems to have had useful content at the time of its creation, and the only justification I can see for its merging into "dragon" so soon after that is that it was quite short and in need of improvement. But since the subject isn't covered there, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be re-created by someone with more expertise in the subject, it might be best to target it to an appropriate alternative. I briefly looked for more specific articles having to do with Javanese religion/mythology, but didn't see anything involving dragons, although Mythology of Indonesia does mention dragons. Or it could be recreated with its former text, but that looks to be in need of considerable improvement, and the subject is far enough beyond my scope of knowledge that I'm not confident I could make it acceptable. But of course, articles don't need to be perfect, and there is no deadline for improving them. So restoring the pre-merger version would be my second choice. P Aculeius (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Having had a look into this, I think the reason it's hard to find much discussion of this is that it there is actually no such thing. I oppose the suggested target of Mythology of Indonesia since there is no discussion of dragons in Javanese mythology specifically, so someone searching this would not find anything useful. I am neutral between retargeting to Nāga#Indonesia (see the photos there for the dragon-like non-dragons; this appears to be what the original article was about) or restoring the original article. A7V2 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Nāga#Indonesia. Probably the closest target for this redirect. Weak since Nagas and dragons aren't necessarily synonymous. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Nāga#Indonesia- close enough, plausible search term.Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 06:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Multi-headed dragon → Dragon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Two-headed dragon → Dragon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Surprisingly enough, these concepts are not defined in the target article which identifies these concepts specifically. There are a few examples of multiple-headed dragons mentioned in the target article, in addition to one image of a multiple headed dragon being present in the target article, but I don't think that is enough to warrant these redirects targeting this page since there concepts are not specifically defined. In addition, there is an article with a subject that is probably the most related to these concepts, Polycephaly, but I did not see an appropriate place to retarget these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep where they are. These are plausible search terms, and while the target article may not discuss the concept specifically, readers who are redirected there might be expected to find the mentions that are there, and realize that there is no independent content under those titles as a result of the redirects. That may prompt editors to research the topic and write about it, either under "dragon" or under one of the redirects, which would be a good thing. I don't see any benefit to simply deleting the redirects. Conceivably readers might be looking for information on dragons in heraldry, or in fantastic literature (the Dungeons & Dragons version of Tiamat comes to mind), but "dragon" is probably the safest target unless someone wants to create an article under one of these titles. I don't think readers are as likely to be looking for polycephaly; that doesn't look like a good alternative to the present target or simply building an article out of one of the redirects. P Aculeius (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and potentially WP:REDYES/WP:RFD#D10. If we started with the assumption that we must have a redirect for everything someone can plausibly search then yes, the current target is best. However that is not the case. There is very little about multiheaded dragons specifically in Dragon, and the existence of these redirects creates the false impression that there is such specific discussion. Anyone searching this will certainly still find dragon, and may well be searching this after having already read dragon. A7V2 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both redirects get a handful of clicks every month by pageview and Dragon has the broadest coverage for multi-headed dragons (14 by my count), though no two-headed ones. When I search "multi-headed dragon" the Dragon article doesn't top the list though it should, and the redirect will help that. However, I'm not familiar enough with how the Wikipedia search works to know if the reason the Dragon article isn't at the top of the list is because the redirect exists. ― Synpath 00:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above: {{r from related topic}}. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above, and also tag {{R with possibilities}}. We could, I suppose, have an article solely on two-or-more-headed dragons, but it doesn't exist yet, and I see no clamor to create one. Also, any editor could add content to the current target article on multi-headedness in dragons. BD2412 T 15:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 target now mentions them. Jay 💬 06:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Sea-Centipede → Sea serpent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Cetacean Centipede → Sea serpent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Neither of these redirects are mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirects and the target articles subject unclear. In addition, both of these redirects formerly targeted Many-finned sea serpent, which was deleted per AFD in 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sea centipede claims that "Great Sea-Centipede" is an alternative name for a sea serpent, but I can't find any RS on that. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget Great Sea-Centipede to Sea centipede where this is at least briefly discussed, even if unsourced. Weak delete Cetacean Centipede, with second preference to retarget to Sea centipede. Certainly this is a better target for both of these redirects than the current one, but I have no objection to deleting. A7V2 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added cited mentions at the sea serpent article @Steel1943, Edward-Woodrow, and A7V2:. I don't think there's enough material for an actual article but I think it deserves a mention in the parent article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Drama. Consensus seems pretty clear. No reason to keep this open longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:POPCORN → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was RfD'd in 2019 but without a clear reason for deletion (arguably should have been speedily kept). I think it's worth revisiting that discussion with a proper rationale given.

The mentality of treating AN/I as theater is a very unhealthy one, and this redirect encourages that. AN/I is a place where we block and ban users, address serious harassment and abuse, and, ideally, try to deescalate tensions between good-faith users in disagreements. None of those are "popcorn"-worthy, and that people see them as such is frankly quite troubling, and contributes to the incessant drumbeat of useless driveby comments by people who see one of our most serious noticeboards as a spectacle.

That's not to say there's no place for comedy at or about AN/I. That's why I'm not RfDing WP:HAPPYPLACE. But the purpose of this redirect is not just levity, but trivialization. That is not something we should encourage. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 30 § Wikipedia:You can see Hell from here for a case of a similar redirect (to RfA) being deleted as promoting an unhealthy mentality. -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 20:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: What about the redirects WP:Dramaboard, WP:CESSPIT, or WP:Great Dismal Swamp? I think all three of these also fall under redirects that "[treat] AN/I as theater". I'm not trying to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just curious about your opinion. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Freedom4U: The first is borderline, but at least doesn't imply taking pleasure in the drama. AN/I is a very dramatic place, but that doesn't mean we should take pleasure in that. So, like I said, borderline. The second and third seem like commentary on AN/I's failings, so I don't see an issue with them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I really like Tamzin's rationale here, but a corollary to "if you build it, they will come" is "if you have a process page on Wikipedia, someone will make a useless and/or snarky WP: link to it". I'd be sure that deleting this one, for the best reasons in the world, will fail to have any effect... not least because we can be sure that it will be recreated very soon by someone else wanting to make a point or a joke or a pointy-joke. — Trey Maturin™ 18:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trey Maturin: I agree it's probably Whac-A-Mole with things like this, but that's true of many classes of bad redirect, so I don't see it as a reason not to try. Also, if someone did recreate this exact redirect (or a near-identical one like WP:popcorn), that would be eligible for G4 speedy deletion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ReTarget to Wikipedia:Drama. Which, helpfully, also has a link to AN/I at the top. I think this is a good way to split the difference on this one. - jc37 20:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That works for me. We can add this shortcut to the hatnote, which already refers to "the place where [WP:DRAMA] formerly redirected". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh- I'm not saying this is a healthy approach to to ANI, but... eh, let people think what they want. It gets used. I'm not strongly opposed to deletion, though. The retarget also seems reasonable. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WP:Drama per Jc37. I don't share the nom's concern, but it's reasonable enough to just honour it. Only ~45 links point here, and their target can be inferred without much difficulty. J947 † ^edits 23:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WP:Drama. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 23:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Drama per above, and add a hatnote pointing to the previous target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Drama per above. A hatnote to WP:ANI would be a good compromise. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The popcorn reference is taking in enjoyment of drama. The connection—and thus the concern—still exists by retargeting it there. That is not okay. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, what's the concern here? People thinking the wrong way? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this occasion calls for popcorn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Drama per the above. While I grant the negative inference, it is an inference to be discussed rather than swept under the rug. BD2412 T 15:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 02:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Most commented youtube video → Wafa Sultan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per WP:R#DELETE, #5. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 11:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's explained at the target though? J947 † ^edits 11:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• While this is mentioned at the target, it doesn't seem to still be the most commented YouTube video (it's actually now deleted; the source is from 2007...). A quick google search brings up [4] as the current most-commented video (though I took it from wikitubia, so maybe not the most reliable source); that factoid is also mentioned at Amir Tataloo, though unsourced, but that's probably the best target if/when it's sourced. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Should this be deleted since it likely won't have a long term stable target? ― Synpath 00:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this redirect is both currently incorrect and requires regular maintenance (retargeting) to be correct ... and even then, there's no guarantee there will be a place representing the "new subject" which this redirect refers. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Steel1943. Will have to frequently updated, and Wikipedia isn't Google. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Steel1943. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel1943. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 02:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Seek and Strike → Upon a Burning Body  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Inappropriate to target to one act who is signed to (but not involved in the operation of) the label when they've released material from other notable acts and are only briefly mentioned on the target page. Not aware of a more appropriate target so I would just delete. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or create article - Keep or create article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jax 0677 is there any particular reason you think it should be kept? Do you think the target should remain the same? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete per WP:REDYES. BD2412 T 16:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to facilitate Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).