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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Pacific Review → Taylor & Francis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Journal of Legal History → Taylor & Francis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Immigrants and Minorities → Taylor & Francis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences → Taylor & Francis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Missed a few in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_7#Bunch_of_academic_journals, so here they are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, per nom's previous reason. --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These red links are part of a tracking system. gidonb (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gidonb: you might want to check the March 7 link discussion as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:37, 11 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 Steven Spielberg#Prospective projects. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara (film) → Steven Spielberg filmography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Please delete this redirect. The film no longer appears anywhere in the target article, and I think the film is no longer in active development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.209.40.250 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Left tags on article as page was not initially. TartarTorte 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• it’s still mentioned at Steven Spielberg#Prospective projects so unless that is also removed I don’t believe this should be deleted.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Steven Spielberg#Prospective projects, where the title is mentioned. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:91D5:771C:E298:A9F0 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Steven Spielberg#Prospective projects: per the IPs. Nothing in WP:RDEL fits here, and if there is information to be found on the topic, this redirect makes it easier for readers to find it. I don't see any upside to deletion of a WP:CHEAP redirect that serves a purpose. Notability requirements do not apply to redirects. - 2pou (talk) 15:47, 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 Speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Storyful. → Storyful  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely search term when you include the period at the end Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at their logo () or visit their website, you will see that's how their name is stylized. And thus a plausible name to search with. Note: Keep as redirect creator. BhamBoi (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per BhamBoi. As well, I have added {{Lowercase title}} to the redirect. TartarTorte 16:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:51, 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) 03:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vratislav z Mitrovíc → Wratislaw of Mitrovice  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted because there is a typo in the Czech spelling of the noble family (correct is Vratislav z Mitrovic, which already exists). FromCzech (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: {{R from misspelling}}. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  From the point of view of Czech orthography, this is a very unlikely misspelling. Maybe i'm misunderstanding but WP:R#DELETE No. 8 says that implausible typo is the reason for deletion. FromCzech (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No need to waste time over this. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, highly unlikely typo. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:49, 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 keep. Legoktm (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows 81 → Windows 8.1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible misspelling and too few views. I suggest deletion since this redirect does not have a dot. 176.88.80.215 (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 573 lifetime views seems sufficient to mark this as a plausible misspelling. Randi Moth (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: simple {{R from modification}}. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a plausible mistake to make. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete due to the fact that this title could potentially be considered a {{R from incorrect name}} for MS-DOS since it was the predecessor to Microsoft Windows, it was released in 1981, and since titles like Windows 95 and Windows 98 exist. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plausible misspelling for Windows 8.1. The DOS = Windows 81 makes no sense since Windows wasn't a thing back in 81. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I never claimed Windows existed in 1981, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments get old. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I never claimed Windows existed in 1981" the point is that no one else will either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{R from incorrect name}}s exist for a reason, so I don't buy that. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...Well, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't mean what I thought it meant, so stuck that out. Steel1943 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep {{R from typo}} -- a typo by single character omission is a very common form of typo -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Steel1943, as it could be mistaken with MS-DOS which was released in 1981; even though it wasn't named Windows back then. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:57, 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 retarget to Consumer Price Index (United Kingdom). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cost of living in the United Kingdom → 2021–present United Kingdom cost of living crisis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There currently exists an article on the Retail Price Index, which is the cost-of-living measurement used in the U.K. (it's even the redirect target of inflation in the United Kingdom and UK inflation). It might be better to have this redirect point to the measure used by the U.K. Treasury for cost of living rather than to an article about cost of living during the 2020s. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Id suggest leaving it as is until the current crisis is over - unitl it is I'd expect most readers would want to read about the current target. Btw, while RPI is a relevent metric for cost of living in UK, I'd suggest CPIH or even measure of Real income are better. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Consumer Price Index (United Kingdom), as per nom; Consumer Price Index is now the official one, so that should be the target. Cost of living is very general, so linking to one specific crisis is not useful. The current crisis could be a link at the "See also" section of Consumer Price Index. Unknown-Tree (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Per WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia should be written with a long-term significance in mind. The current housing crisis will likely cease to be the primary topic after it ends, so redirecting there is inappropriate. A hatnote leading to the crisis in the target article would be good to aid those that are searching for it. I'm not sure whether of the two indexes is the appropriate target page, however. Randi Moth (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Consumer Price Index (United Kingdom) per WP:TENYEARTEST. I've added the current target to that page's "See also" section, where it seems appropriate alongside the link to the 1976 sterling crisis. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:38, 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Way Cult → The Way International  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The redirect is vague. "Way Cult" is not the name of anything. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The organization has been described as a "cult" by some observers: [1], [2], [3]. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Presidentman: The Way International has been, indeed; but not "Way". "Way Cult" (especially with capital "C") means nothing and is ambiguous. Veverve (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it's not an exact match, hence why my !vote is "weak." I still think it's unambiguous enough to where there isn't another plausible target. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plausible search term based on a number of sources discussing and description the group as a cult. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's tricky, because the target article doesn't outright describe The Way International as a cult, and we shouldn't allow the redirect mechanism to be used as a way to sneak in a WP:LABEL, but on the other hand several sources do make that accusation, so it seems to me that the article could, in principle, be edited to discuss that accusation. In the meantime, we have WP:RNEUTRAL. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:35, 13 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).