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 procedural close/no consensus. There appears to be agreement that the redirect and target titles refer to the same concept, and discussion has shifted to the question of which should be the proper article title. There isn't a clear consensus on that question here at this time, and WP:RM is the process to use to carry out that discussion further. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mode-k flattening → Mode-m flattening  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not mentioned in target Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move the article back to "Mode-k flattening". The opening sentence originally read "In multilinear algebra, mode-k flattening..." until a page move. However a google search shows no mention of mode-m, only of mode-k. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not sure "mode-m flattening" is the same with "mode-m flattening". Both are related to tensors, but I am not mathematically savvy enough to know whether two of them are the same, differs a little, or differs a lot. I think deletion is a safer approach right now, until some more mathematical savvy editor can provide insights. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to the prior pagename, and restore the older text. There appears to be an editwar at Tensor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and this could be part of it. The safe thing to do would be to revert to mode-k flattening. as it has existed from 2017 creation to December 2022 when the edit warring at Tensor began and this article was moved -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE the content of the article Mode-m flattening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was changed from "mode-k" to "mode-m" without changing the reference [1] -- does the reference actually state "mode-m" ? If it doesn't, then this seems more like vandalism, as it would be faking a term with a reference attached, instead of using a new reference that actually uses the new terminology. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, the reference uses neither, but instead uses the term matricizing also mentioned in the article. It merely notes that flattening is an alternative designation of this process, with a reference to another article.^[1]

    That article in turn calls it mode-n flattening, but clearly uses the n merely as a placeholder variable rather than as part of the designation. Felix QW (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That conference article has an author "M. Alex O. Vasilescu", who according to a recent autobiography AfD is Alexmov (talk · contribs), the user who made the change to this Wikipedia article. ... -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person who performed the change Alexmov (talk · contribs) appears to be a professor (AfD for autobiography) in the area of tensors [2] so this might be personal terminology -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mode-M Flattening The terminology flattening, matrixizing, "mode-n flattening" or "mode-m flattening" were coined by Vasilescu and Terzopoulos in 2002. The letter m is the first letter of the word mode and it has values between 1 ≤ m ≤ M where M is an upper bound scalar. The terminology was adopted by others. Eldén and Savas references Vasilescu and Terzopoulos as originating the terminology. A [google search] will show there are lots of references to mode-n flattening, as opposed to mode-k flattening which one paper from 2020 employs. Alexmov (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added references to Vasilescu and Terzopoulos' work which coined the terminology. Alexmov (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also expanded the entry. Alexmov (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this discussion really be had as a move request rather than at RfD? Felix QW (talk) 13:08, 17 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spiderman 5 → The Amazing Spider-Man 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Spiderman 6 → Spider-Man: Homecoming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

For the same reasons at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Spider-Man 6. These films were never ordered in such a way and are never referred to by these numbers either as they aren't part of one series of films, but 3 completely different film series. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Should be basically a WP:G4, but these titles are formatted slightly differently than the deleted ones. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. These are blatantly confusing and the subjects are not commonly referred to as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Neither common nor correct. —El Millo (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Incorrect names, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I was going to speedy delete these redirects as a WP:G4 before realizing that these redirects were created before the linked RFD. These redirects are unhelpful and confusing just like the redirects in the linked RFD (This RFD couldn’t have come at a better time. It’s almost the anniversary of the linked RFD). Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 20:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the previous discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hungry as fuck → Starvation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible search term. Randi Moth (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PANDORA also applies: existence of this may lead to a reader expecting similar redirects, such as Poor as fuck to Extreme poverty. Randi Moth (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with the reference to WP:PANDORA, this is an unnecessary and implausible search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unhelpful connection and implausible search term. Politrukki (talk) 14:37, 9 March 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. Jay 💬 06:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer key → Exam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Possibly surprisingly, the redirect is not mentioned or identified in the target article. I'd have to imagine that would be a retargeting option for this redirect, but if not, this redirect's title probably has WP:REDLINK potential. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current target is too narrow anyway – answer keys aren't just used for exams, but also for homework assignments and other kinds of evaluations. But I don't see any suitable target. Rubric (academic) is a related concept, but not the same. Educational assessment, Criterion-referenced test, Grading in education, Corrective feedback, and Peer assessment are articles that could potentially cover this topic, but they don't. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:25, 9 March 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 Placement testing. Legoktm (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Placement paper → Exam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Could this be another word for a placement test? Some searching finds a few websites that suggest it might be[3][4], but I'm not sure. If it is, retarget to Placement test. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a paper indicating placement is not the same as the result of a test. "Placement" has no strong association with exams -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could this be a regional issue? In the UK, it is very common to call an exam a "paper", so to me this would be a clear reference to a "placement test". But this might be different for others. Felix QW (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Granger and Felix, however not to placement test as that itself is a redirect, but to Placement testing. Placement exam which is the target of placement test, is a stub (and a duplicate), although it was created in 2005. I have created a request for it to be merged in to placement testing. Jay 💬 07:04, 16 March 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 soft redirect to Wikt:quest#Etymology 2. Jay 💬 13:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Quest (assessment) → Exam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The word "quest" is nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• wikt:quest#Etymology 2 gives a definition – it's supposed to be something in between a quiz and a test. I guess the most helpful option for readers is to soft-redirect to that Wiktionary entry, but I don't feel strongly about it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget softly to wikt:quest#Etymology 2. J947 † ^edits 02:23, 12 March 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 Examination. Consider this like a "withdraw". (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Examine → Exam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This verb does not have an exclusive connection to the subject of the target article. For example, this could also refer to Examination. Delete as an unsolvable ambiguous situation. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Examination, which is a disambiguation page which lists Exam and other potential meanings. Randi Moth (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Randi Moth. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Examination per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 10 March 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User visited Cultural Heritage → Template:User visited Cultural heritage of Serbia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete as ambiguous. I WP:BOLDly renamed this userbox template following the related stub template after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_26#Template:Cultural-Heritage-stub. – Fayenatic London 17:38, 8 March 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. Jay 💬 19:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• C4H10O8 → Oosporein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

According to the sources Oosporein is C14H10O8 instead of C4H10O8. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems like the creator made a typo. Having a redirect would be misleading and I'm unable to find any alternative target for C4H10O8. Politrukki (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: potentially misleading typo with no other possible use for the redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Appears to have been a typo. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 9 March 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. Legoktm (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Moral and Canonical Aspect of Marriage → Christian views on marriage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The capital letters make this redirect unhelpful. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Creator) - Catholic Encyclopedia index entries are likely to be recreated by someone else a few years down the line. These are cheap and keeping them around means they are likely to be directed to the best place. JASpencer (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A recreation of a deleted page after a discussion is a WP:G4 which should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a title, but I don't know if it actually is. keep if it's the title of something, delete if not. HotdogPi 16:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't find the capital letters rationale a problem, it can always be renamed. The target does not mention the canonical aspect. Delete. Jay 💬 08:06, 16 March 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. Legoktm (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Marriage, Moral and Canonical Aspect of → Christian views on marriage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The capital letters as well as the wording make this redirect unhelpful. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Creator) - Catholic Encyclopedia index entries are likely to be recreated by someone else a few years down the line. These are cheap and keeping them around means they are likely to be directed to the best place. JASpencer (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A recreation of a deleted page after a discussion is a WP:G4 which should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: Like the rest of these sorted Catholic Encyclopedia titles, this isn't very plausible on Wikipedia. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 11:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia does not have to follow Catholic Encyclopedia search indices. Jay 💬 08:08, 16 March 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. Legoktm (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion → 2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely search term, too long to meaningfully save search time. MaterialWorks _(talk) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep, this seems harmless, and accurately descriptive. BD2412 T 00:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: It's a bit long, but it's accurate and it could be a possible search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Weak delete: Very long title that is entirely arbitrary. It isn't a plausible search term, because it does not match the title of any headline (Google Search returns zero results), and even if it did, I don't think it would be wise to create redirects from every single headline to a notable topic, since they could easily number in the hundreds if not thousands. This title is only going to be a search term for those readers who by sheer coincidence happen to type the same exact words while playing with the search box. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that Skynxnex gave a valid reason below, and the one that I find the most convincing for keeping the redirect. I still think this redirect is a net negative, because it should never be linked from other articles, and it is going to gradually lose usefulness – as time passes, people lose interest on that topic and the subset of readers typing exacly "10 year old" at the search box will shrink further. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - though unlikely, it is within the realm of possibility this could be searched. WP:CHEAP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – unlikely search term, per nom and Dsuke1998AEOS. Deletion is CHEAP. Politrukki (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is plausible that someone might type "10 year old ..." in the search box to find this topic and this redirect helps it appear in autocomplete. Skynxnex (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion for that. But should that be bundled here? Jay 💬 19:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: This title, unlike the one being discussed here, does exist and is an actual headline. There's a greater chance that this redirect would be kept were it brought to RfD, so it's better to have a separate discussion. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:21, 17 March 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. Jay 💬 10:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Porn lawyer → Michael Avenatti  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This name is ambiguous (surely other attorneys defended or prosecuted individuals involved in pornography) and unmentioned at the target, and while I would not recommend searching the term, it does not appear that Avenatti has ever been called by it. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think I saw him called that on Twitter a few times, but certainly not to the extent that would justify a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP. This is a slur worthy of immediate deletion. Stormy Daniels is indeed a porn star, but that doesn't make Avenatti a porn lawyer. His article doesn't even have a single word or source using this phrase. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Avenatti has been called creepy porn lawyer. WaPo That's close, but different. Another problem is there may be some attorneys who actually do represent the porn industry in some way. So porn lawyer is more of a profession than nickname for one person. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Iamreallygoodatcheckers's reason. This seems to be more of a term for a niche law practice than an actual person. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a BLP violation because it would not need a big jump to call Avenatti a "porn lawyer", but the term is too ambiguous. Although the search term could be considered plausible, Creepy porn lawyer would be better, but that redirect should not be created without proper content and sourcing in the target. Politrukki (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He is not a "porn lawyer". He has been called as such by some people but redirecting it to him is incorrect. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• G7: This seems to have been overlooked, but the creator of this redirect (Iamreallygoodatcheckers) !voted to delete. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 00:56, 15 March 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. Legoktm (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Extended Constructed Response → Exam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Extended Constructed Respose → Exam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the article and the redirects unclear. (However, Extended Constructed Respose, though misspelled, is a {{R from merge}} as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extended Constructed Respose in 2006; however, this edit was the extent of that merge, and that content seems to no longer be in the target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. Additionally because of typo in 'Respose'. Jay 💬 19:27, 15 March 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 Assessment. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Types of assessment → Exam#Types  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The redirect is a {{R from merge}} to its target, but ... shouldn't this redirect target Assessment? Steel1943 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:46, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 00:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lord's Supper → Eucharist  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"The term 'Lord's Supper' refers both to the biblical event and the act of 'Holy Communion' and Eucharistic ('thanksgiving') celebration within their liturgy. Evangelical Protestants also use the term 'Lord's Supper' " (Last Supper#Terminology).

Therefore, this redirect should be turned into a DAB with Eucharist and Last Supper. Veverve (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain. "A title for the Christian eucharist" is the only definition given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions and the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Even if it were ambiguous, there is a primary topic for the term and that is the Eucharist. See, e.g., I. Howard Marshall's The Last Supper and the Lord's Supper. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain. In fact, the references in the Last Supper article suggesting that that was sometimes called the "Lord's Supper" were spurious. StAnselm (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain The last supper as I understand it was the first celebration of the Eucharist. The "Lords Supper" is a common name for the Eucharist so redirecting to that page will lead into the explanation of both. The term is a common name for the Eucharist,but one which some Christians e.g. Roman Catholics may not know.Many non-Christians may come across the name and some Christians will know it best by that name. Where else should it be re-directed? Giving "Lords Supper" its own page will simply duplicate much of the Eucharist phraseSpinney Hill (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain - many Protestant/Evangelical denominations use Lord's supper to describe the Eucharist. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 23:53, 9 March 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 Test. Seems like the clear choice, so I'm just gonna close this thing. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Testing → Exam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect was mentioned at WP:RMTR as potentially not targeting the correct page. Since this redirect being mentioned being potentially incorrect was the reason why I denied a related WP:RMTR request, I'm bringing this redirect here, but am neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...However, with that being said, the participants in the WP:RMTR discussion (Fgnievinski, BarrelProof, and Silikonz) may not be neutral in the matter. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...For example, in the WP:RMTR discussion, BarrelProof mentioned a list of possible targets being found at Test#Science and technology. (Again, I'm neutral, but mentioning this in the event BarrelProof does not participate in this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Test, which is a disambiguation page. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Test, which fits better. Veverve (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Test: what matters is having test and testing pointing to the same target. fgnievinski (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Test: It's an ambiguous term and there are entries on the page that fit. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Test per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:01, 8 March 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).