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 04:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sugar Bunker → Nevada Test Site  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unclear connection to target. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Other than this one image on commons, c:File:NTS - Sugar Bunker.jpg, I couldn't find much related to Sugar Bunker. It appers to be a bunker that is at the Nevada Test Site, but I can't find any notability for it or even a way to mention it in the article. TartarTorte 13:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I found it on Google Maps. It a bunker at the test site I believe. Opok2021 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Related discussion here: User_talk:Rosiestep/Archive_39#Sugar_Bunker. —Kusma (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input. Related discussion doesn't provide much clarity either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it doesn't seem like a referenced mention can be added. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Brian#Fictional characters. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian (character) → Brian (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Brian § Fictional characters, where there is a list of characters named Brian. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 20:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Seems uncontroversial. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Doctor Who logos → Doctor Who  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This list was redirected at AfD back in 2016. At the time, there was a "Logo history" section. I was on the fence about The Doctor Who Logo and Doctor who logo, as we can at least serve readers with the current logo and a link to the respective file (though I'd never create such redirects now), but we can't follow through on this one at all. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The target contains no such list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Doctor and Rose → Doctor Who  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• The doctor and Rose → Doctor Who  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These were created, probably by the same person, as small essays about two Doctor Who characters. Rose Tyler would be a more suitable target, WP:XY issues with The Doctor (Doctor Who) notwithstanding, but I don't think we need to keep them at all. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Doctor Who Glossary of Terms and Names → Doctor Who  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

We have no such glossary. Its original form, from 2006, would fail modern inclusion criteria, so the remaining redirect is just bound to disappoint and mislead readers. BDD (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian Minchin → Doctor Who  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:REDLINK. This person has been a producer and writer for various Doctor Who media, but isn't mentioned anywhere in the main article, and retargeting to one place where he's mentioned would obscure the others. BDD (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• EXO (组合) → Exo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

组合 is Chinese for "band"; unnecessary disambiguator in another language ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to the modifier being in a non-English language in en.wiki --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MAYPOLE TRADITION IN BAVARIA → Maypole#Germany and the former Austria-Hungary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I don't see anyone searching for an all-caps subject barring stylizations, and this is obviously not stylized. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and since Maypole tradition in Bavaria exists. (As for the history: an article was created at this title in 2006, moved to the lowercase title, and redirected in 2009 since it was completely unsourced, resulting in this redirect as well.) Duckmather (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Essentially treating this as a WP:BOLD edit proposal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Baianá → Bakermat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Create disabmiguation page. The word "Baianá" is apparently a feminine Demonym for someone from Bahia, and also the title of a folk song that was adapted (notably?) by Barbatuques [pt] in 2005 ([1]). This performance has been extensively remixed. The 2019 remix by Bakermat (the current redirect target) is only one of many. The disambig could use input from someone knowledgeable in Brazilian (or better yet Baiano) culture. (Edit: the meaning of the term is apparently more complex (See, e.g. [2]) reinforcing the need for someone knowledgeable.) See Draft:Baianá for a proposed disambig. Theodore Kloba (☎) 16:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimbо Wales → Jimmy Wales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:MIXEDSCRIPT The "o" in "jimbo" is actually an O (Cyrillic). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jimbo Wales exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Duckmather (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. How sneaky! –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 20:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ivanа Reitmayerova → Ivana Reitmayerová  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:MIXEDSCRIPT. The second "a" in "Ivana" is actually an A (Cyrillic). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Duckmather (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 21:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Isekai One Turn Kill Nee-san: Ane Dо̄han no Isekai Seikatsu Hajimemashita → My One-Hit Kill Sister  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:MIXEDSCRIPT. The accented о̄ is an O with macron (Cyrillic) instead of the correct latin character. This redirect is left over from moving the page to the correct title/ 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Duckmather (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 21:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Institute of Сhemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine → Institute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine (Russia)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:MIXEDSCRIPT. The "C" in "Chemical" is actually a Es (Cyrillic). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Duckmather (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 21:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dominion of Canada → Name of Canada#Kingdom and Dominion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Dominion of canada → Name of Canada#Kingdom and Dominion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Canada, per the original creator's intent and that it pointed to that article for a number of years. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there is a Dominion of canada redirect (lower case c in Canada). Consider this discussion to cover both redirects. Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - "Dominion of Canada" is not the correct name for Canada. This has been a long-standing issue and the consensus has been that the issue is best dealt with by a re-direct to the WP article that deals in detail with the evolution of the way Canada has been referred to. Redirecting "Dominion of Canada" to "Canada" is misleading, as it suggests that is the appropriate way to refer to the country. It is not, and WP should not be fostering inaccurate information. The fact that it pointed incorrectly for a number of years is not a reason to recreate the error. The "original intent" of the person who creates a redirect is not binding on the WP community. Consensus has developed that this issue is best dealt with at the "Name of Canada" article, not the "Canada" article. Pointing "Dominion of Canada" to the discussion on the name of Canada is far more helpful to a reader who is interested in the correct way to refer to Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Neither the original creator's intent nor what the redirect has pointed to in the past are particularly relevant. The determining factor is getting readers to the information they are looking for. I think is is overwhelmingly more likely that someone who searches "Dominion of Canada" is looking for detailed information on that specific name, rather than just wanting information about Canada generally.--Trystan (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both - "Dominion" was a term created within the British Empire to legally define a constitutional framework that evolved largely in pre-Confederation Canada, for a federated entity with more legal sovereignty than a colony. Dominions legally became Realms of the Commonwealth sometime between 1931 and 1949. The "Dominion" name stuck around informally because Canada took so long to patriate its own constitution and fully sever legislative ties with Britain, but the legal Dominion of Canada ceased to exist no later than the passage of the Canada Act 1982 (and debatably earlier). The targeted section explains the history of Canada's various archaic names. Note that British Dominion of Canada also targets this section, while Canada#Etymology is basically a short summary with a link to this target for more information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Dominion#Canadian Confederation and evolution of the term Dominion is also good background information, although I think the current target is better. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are mutiple good destinations, I could also support moving Dominion of Canada (disambiguation) to the base name.--Trystan (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  IvanVector, just to be sure I understand your position, when you say "Keep Both", does that mean you oppose the proposed change and want the status quo to stay? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's correct, I oppose the proposal. This discussion became slightly odd but convention at RFD is that "keep" means "don't make any changes to the redirect", while "retarget" argues for changing the target of the redirect, and "delete" means what it always means. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Will keep the custom in mind for the future. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I object to the change request. And I object to the use of the term Dominion of Canada in relation to geography and common use. Dominion of Canada = Canada. Please see Name of Canada. This was resolved SIX years ago. There is no separate Dominion of Canada entity and there won't be a separate article on that term. (Never say never - but seems highly unlikely) It is covered in the Name of Canada article. So it is appropriately redirected. The use of 'Dominion of Canada' only helps to continue in readers' minds that there was something separate, like Province of Canada, or Dominion of Newfoundland. But there isn't! Alaney2k (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with retargeting to Canada. Although this certainly was a term used for Canada, it has been obsolete for some time now and it would be better to redirect to a target which explains the term in its historical context - either Name of Canada#Kingdom and Dominion, Dominion#Canada or maybe some part of History of Canada. Hut 8.5 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – current target is correct. This has been previously debated and already settled—this request is merely WP:REHASH. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Purpose of redirects is to redirect alternative names to the most appropirate article title. Also, per Technical language, wikilinking is not a substitute for explaining terms in articles. So for example if someone reading an article about an Imperial Conference clicked on the link to Dominion of Canada,they would expect to find an article about Canada,not about its naming history.

Incidentally, the naming of the country as a Dominion predates the use of the term to describe autonomous realms other than the UK within the Empire.

TFD (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite, please. Where in the Constitution Act, 1867, does it say that the country is named "Dominion of Canada"? I've already pointed to s. 3 of the Act which states "under the name of Canada." It doesn't say "under the name of the Dominion of Canada". Please provide the cite that says the name is "Dominion of Canada".

To that, I would add that the subsequent Constitution of Australia Act, also passed by the British Parliament, uses a different approach. Section 3 of that Act, the equivalent to s. 3 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the Australian colonies "shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia". There, "Commonwealth" is clearly part of the name of the country. Section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is different, and says "under the name of Canada". Unlike the Australian example, the name is just "Canada", not "Dominion of Canada". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One last point, in response to this point by TFD:

So for example if someone reading an article about an Imperial Conference clicked on the link to Dominion of Canada,they would expect to find an article about Canada,not about its naming history.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. If there is a particular reason why "Dominion of Canada" in a particular article needs to refer specifically to "Canada", that's easily done in that particular case by piping: "Canada|Dominion of Canada". But we're talking here about the redirect, which should point to the discussion on the "Name of Canada". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, the use of Dominion of Canada pipelinked to Canada like that should only be done if linking quotes containing "Dominion of Canada", not otherwise, like in a geographic description from 1867 onwards. Alaney2k (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If it's relevant in some way to the particular article, not as a general redirect. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mr Srjeant Buzfuz. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 09:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Canadian Confederation. As a reader I'd expect former official names to point to an article covering the country's history during the period by which it was known by that name, if there was one. Canadian Confederation opens with, Canadian Confederation was the process by which three British North American provinces... were united into one federation called the Dominion of Canada, on July 1, 1867. This seems to satisfy that. Maybe leave a hatnote to the current target. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The section to which the redirect is linked is about the naming of Canada as a "kingdom" or "dominion". It makes the most sense that an appropriate redirect leads there, particularly since Canada is no longer legally called the Dominion of Canada. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill: why relist? Above the fold there are seven keep !votes (one explicit, six "oppose" comments saying the current target is correct) against two supports (the proposal and one explicit support) and one retarget to a different target altogether. Does consensus need to be more clear? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought that the late suggestion for retargeting Canadian Confederation merited further discussion. Now that a successive editor has opined against it after the relist the discussion is clearer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the reason for the re-listing, I would say that I don't support the Canadian Confederation proposal, for the reasons already given. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point, thanks for following up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even with the proposal to retarget to Canadian Confederation, I oppose. The current target is literally an article on the origins of the name of Canada, of which "Dominion of Canada" is an aspect. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pax Russica → Russian world  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete – no mention at target (aside from hatnote) GnocchiFan (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Finnish Civil War#Pax Russica (where the hatnote of the current target leads). My Latin is rusty but I'm pretty sure this phrase means "peace with Russia", or peace under Russia's influence. Google suggests it was also used in the early post-Cold War period as a concept for a Eurasian military alliance against the West, but we don't seem to have anything on it on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In Russian, мир (mir) means both "world" and "peace", and hence русский мир (russkiy mir) could be read as either "Russian world" or "Russian peace". I can only speculate that there may be some wordplay or conflation of the concepts in Russian-language sources due to the polysemy. Incidentally, that may also be why Russian peace redirects here, another head-scratcher. But as for whether these redirects make any sense in English, maybe not, at least as it stands. The current article doesn't even use the word "peace" except in references. But maybe there's more to the story than I know. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense. I agree that Russian peace should also be deleted as a redirect unless good evidence is given to show otherwise. – GnocchiFan (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pax Russica is presumably a reference to Pax Romana in a similar manner to Pax Americana and Pax Britannica. It is a term that has been getting thrown around by some commentators in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine depleting Russia's ability to project power and help "stabilize"/dominate the central/west Asia region. It seems like a reasonable search term. I don't have a better retarget or a clear reliable source. - Darker Dreams (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking along the same lines, but if this is true then it really should be mentioned in the redirected article. Otherwise, it's a confusing redirect term for someone unfamiliar with it (which I'd have thought would be one of the main reasons to look it up on Wikipedia). GnocchiFan (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed that issue. - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, much appreciated! I'll strike through my previous comment for clarity's sake. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Ivanvector above - we should prefer targets that mention the redirect to those that don't. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Invest (meteorology). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Invest 93L → 2023 Atlantic hurricane season#Invest 93L  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Invest 93L is a common designation for tropical disturbances in the Atlantic Ocean by the National Hurricane Center. Invest designation is reused each year and year after year (cycling through 90L to 99L and then starting again with 90L). Thus there can be and always are multiple Invest 93L systems each year. This shouldn't redirect to a specific article, as that is highly misleading. United States Man (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per large media attention related to “Invest 93L. Noting, this was renamed to be “Tropical Depression 10” an hour ago, so the redirect is still useful. Sources: Florida Governor [3][4][5][6]. Googling “Invest 93L” pulls up a lot of news articles from the last 24 hours. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invest 93L has been and will be used many times. This redirect is misleading and will quickly become obsolete. United States Man (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget to Invest (meteorology). Per the nomination, this designation refers to many different weather systems across many years. The current system is no longer 93L and will be known as Tropical Depression Ten (and likely Tropical Storm/Hurricane Idalia) hereafter. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Invest 93L" will likely be used numerous times in the future and has been used several times in the past, and will become obsolete as per above. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 22:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, If the 2023 version above was bad, then this is way way worst for the reasons in that discussion spread over every single season. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tails. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Invest (meteorology) other invest links. 199.76.113.24 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the future, this designation will be used if some disturbance gives it that designation. HurricaneEdgar 10:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Invest (meteorology) which explains the designation and how it's used, and identifies the range of numerals that are used with it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Invest (meteorology) per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ChessEric 19:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — and not retarget because it would cause confusion during the season due to the media mentioning invest numbers. We should minimize reader surprise.—Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking long-term, it's not a bad redirect to have if we retarget. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TornadoLGS: Saying it's "not a bad redirect" without supporting statements is not an argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jasper Deng: To clarify, it's a not a bad redirect for someone who might see 93L mentioned in the future and wonder what an invest is. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @TornadoLGS: But they probably would be looking for a specific system, not the article on invests in general. Overall there's no way to keep this redirect without it being confusing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without redirecting — an ambiguous in that the designation is used multiple times in a given hurricane season, and, nobody uses the invest numbers after the particular system either becomes a tropical (subtropical) cyclone or dissipates. It serves no no lasting, or even transient, value as a redirect. Drdpw (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget; a redirect to a page that explains the designation is better than nothing. Most of the reasons for deleting are only reasons not to link it to a specific system or create a disambiguation page; some people could be looking for a specific system, but an explanation that the designation is temporary and is used for different systems is more useful than search results similar to "Invest 91L" (where most are not found, and most mentions in articles are in references where it doesn't refer to the subject of the article). Invest 93L (2023) and Invest 99-L (August 2016) were deleted, but others without the year were retargeted: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 18#Invest 99-L and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Invest 98L. Peter James (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peter James: It is completely unsustainable to create such a disambiguation page. This designation is used many times per season and has been in the past, so we would have hundreds of entries, and not always with reliable sources connecting them to particular systems or seasons. Many don't develop and would not be notable. It would not be any less confusing. Any other redirects of this sort should not be kept either.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; that is why it would be more useful to retarget to Invest (meteorology). Peter James (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is confusing. There's no way to satisfactorily keep this as a redirect or disambiguation. The only option is deletion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The terminology is explained at Invest (meteorology); is there a reason it shouldn't be explained there? Should that article be deleted? Peter James (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • It won't explain the meteorology behind the system in question, because by its nature it's general. And it also would be unwieldy to have 80 redirects (10 invest numbers for each of the letters A, B, C, E, L, P, S, W). That's an excessive amount of disambiguation. I highly suggest not appealing to WP:OSE arguments like "should that article be deleted".--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Invest (meteorology) if this has become a common search/news term and we have a page related to a general topic for the subject deleting such redirects just makes information harder to find for no gain. If the "Invest" term is not going anywhere; even 80 redirects for previously used and predictably reused items all going to one article which is unlikely to move and explains the core term seems like reasonable practice. - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete has numbers, retarget has momentum, one more relist to try for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Invest (meteorology) per Ivanvector. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Invest (meteorology). No convincing reason to delete has been provided. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Editors are divided between keep, delete, and retargeting to Sathya Sai Baba, with several editors expressing ambivalence between more than one option. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Baba Sathya Sai → Kodi Ramakrishna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Please delete this. Redirect's name is not mentioned in target. Furthermore, I would say the director has died, and the film has been cancelled. 2607:FEA8:761F:4600:B5DB:F255:BD71:3EF2 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A former article here indicates (with a source) that principal photography was underway in 2016, and IMDb (not reliable, I know) suggests that this film was released in 2017. I don't see any evidence that the film was cancelled, but it is a bit difficult to search for. I'd suggest that the redirect be retargeted to Sathya Sai Baba (the film's subject) as a {{R from alternative name}} if the film was cancelled, or the article restored if it was released, but either way preserves the history. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (the film is now mentioned in the target page (I did it)). Not opposed to the retarget mentioned by Ivanvector but would prefer if this film was mentioned there.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Ivanvector if someone adds ref to film at that article. Otherwise; Keep, per Mushy Yank. - Darker Dreams (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per two of these if someone adds to Sathya Sai Baba, or Keep per Mushy Yank. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not mentioned at Baba Sathya Sai either. If we have to engage in this level of guesswork to determine where a redirect should go then we shouldn't have a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I tried to dig into this some more. A blog post in December 2020 (on a blog that's not far off from an attack site so I won't link to it) says that the film was shelved in 2014, resurrected and began filming in 2016, and "dropped" in 2018, and also suggests that a different film on the same subject directed by "Vicky Ramanath", was filmed in 2013, had a launch party in 2014, and was planned to be released in 2021. Vicky Ramanath doesn't seem to exist, but a film titled "Sathya Sai Baba" directed by Vicky Ranawat was released in 2021. Since Kodi Ramakrishna died in 2019 and a different movie on the same subject came out later, I think it's safe to say that this film will never be released. Considering all of that, and considering that this redirect doesn't indicate that it's the title of a film in any way, it should be considered a {{R from alternate name}} redirect to Sathya Sai Baba. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Category:Country metal albums. In this long-winded discussion, there's a consensus that a mention should be added and/or an article created, but no consensus on what to do outside of that, between retargeting to a category or a WP:REDYES delete. Given that a mention has not been added, I have retargeted to the category as the most conservative option, however no prejudice against retargeting with a mention or creating an article. (non-admin closure) Clyde _{[trout needed]} 23:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Country metal → Country rock  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

non existent genre and definitely not related to country rock FMSky (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard actually gives mention to country metal here: https://www.billboard.com/pro/country-metal-music-hardy-brantley-gilbert-hard-rock/

Of course, you need to subscribe to view this article, but you can bypass that. Load the page, and then with the wireless switch button on your keyboard (usually under one of the F# keys and requires FN to be held), kill the WiFi. This will prevent the "Subscribe to view this article" thing from coming up and give you the article.

Enough of that, the article uses country metal to describe Brantley Gilbert. It also ties it in with country rock, so, if an article describing this genre cannot be produced, then country rock appears to be the best spot for it. I'll see if I can gather some sources to at least make a small section on country rock for this.

There is also an artist called Hardy. He's a country artist, but per the Billboard source, he's embraced metal elements, and per this Los Angeles Times source, he's embraced nu metal elements as well: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2023-02-16/hardy-morgan-wallen-lainey-wilson-mockingbird-crow

I think there is enough notability to establish that country metal is a thing. There is also Rebel Meets Rebel by David Allen Coe featuring the Abbott brothers (Dimebag Darrel and Vinnie Paul) and Rex Brown of Pantera which lists country metal as its genre. There is also Category: Country metal albums on here as well. Moline1 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd source doesnt mention country metal anywhere --FMSky (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Southern metal redirects to Southern rock#1980s and 1990s: continuing influence. If it were discussed in more detail there, that might be a suitable target, but as such, it seems iffy. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A section was added at the target by Moline1, but reverted by FMSky. I have listed the previous RfD before the redirect was deleted as a G8 two weeks back.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Category:Country metal albums using Template:R to category namespace and Template:R with possibilities. I have zero doubt that this should be kept, since this is a genre that has seen involvement from various artists such as David Allan Coe, Hank Williams III and Leo Moracchioli. Until the time that an article is written, the proposed target seems to be the best fit. StonyBrook _babble 18:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• StonyBrook's proposition is okay in a pinch. It's rare for us to redirect a mainspace title to a category, but not "illegal". That said, I think it would make much, much more sense to just do a hour's research and create a section-stub at Country rock for this, if not a full article. Hell, even a sentence or two with an {{Anchor}} would suffice, as long as the words "country metal" appeared in it so readers know why they were redirected there. I'm halfway tempted to do the work myself, but I already have way too much on my plate and I need to stop taking on additional projects, even small ones. The nominator's "non[-]existent genre and definitely not related to country rock" is obviously balderdash, in both parts of the sentence. Perhaps an argument could be made that it's not a notable genre (which is dubious), but even that would not be an excuse to exclude the content from Country rock and delete the redirect, because WP:NOTABILITY only controls what may have its own article, not what is mentioned inside an article (that's governed by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and sourcable sub-genres are obviously not indiscriminate information.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the recent continued discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:REDLINK it until someone is able to give it the proper treatment. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to First Wikipedia edit#First edit, per rough consensus. There is also consensus among the "retarget" comments to add a hatnote to UUU (disambiguation), but insufficient support for including Wikipedia:UuU or UwU in the hatnote. (non-admin closure) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• UuU → UUU  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to First Wikipedia edit#First edit w/ hatnote per WP:DIFFCAPS. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Among other problems, UuU is only barely discussed at First Wikipedia edit, which is more about the imported edit to HomePage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it works well enough as it is, just add the proposed target into the destination disambiguation page -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Wikipedia:UuU. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget unless any of the other alternatives use this precise term as someone lower casing the 2nd "u" but capitalizing the last probably isn't looking for anything else. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Crouch, Swale. J947 † ^edits 08:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weaker on this now, but are there any other encyclopaedic things referred to as UuU or uuU? J947 † ^edits 02:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to First Wikipedia edit#First edit. It's not a likely search term in any way other than for the first edit of Wikipedia. Hatnotes can deal with the stragglers (maybe add Wikipedia:UuU to the hatnote as well). (A DAB entry probably should be added either way.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 22:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Crouch, Swale. Someone typing this exact sequence with this exact odd capitalization must know what they're looking for already, and that information has moved around a bit over the last 23+ years. A hatnote can catch readers who, I don't know, their SHIFT key has a short in it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The UUU page is a disambiguation that contains First Wikipedia edit as the first option. WP:DIFFCAPS I don't think is as prevalent when the search term is as small as it is, i.e. just three letters. If it were a longer title with more specific capitalization, it would be more confirmable that "yes this is exactly the stylization I want". With 3 letters, who knows, someone might accidentally capitalize the final U. "uuU" is the exact same thing as "UuU" anyway because the first letter is capitalized by default. In my opinion it was fine as is; if people want the first edit, or if they want WP:UuU, they can easily get that at the disambiguation page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But isn't that the point of SMALLDETAILS? If someone accidentally types the wrong title they can go to the DAB. If they type this precise term into the search box either they want the first edit or they have made the error and can go to the DAB. I don't think it would be a plausible redirect if the first edit didn't exist, see WhO for example which is a red link, that said if someone types that term it goes to the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• But it would be plausible as an early days remaining camel case redirect, which would end up ambiguous, so can refer to the article U, and U (disambiguation), as well as UUU . -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That would have been an issue back in 2001/2002 but unlikely today. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Crouch, Swale.Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no need to self-referentially over-emphasise Wikipedia history. —Kusma (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to UuU per the above and per WP:DIFFCAPS (someone who intentionally types in this odd capitalization is probably looking for this specific topic). But also hatnote to both UUU (disambiguation) (intentionally including the suffix per WP:INTDABLINK), as well as to UwU (which is another thing I thought of when I saw "UuU"). Duckmather (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom, with additional arguments by Crouch and Ivan. @Duckmather: "UuU" is the redirect title being discussed, did you mean retarget to "First Wikipedia edit#First edit"? Jay 💬 14:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to First Wikipedia edit § First edit and add hatnote per above. This is not an overemphasis of Wikipedia, because the first Wikipedia edit is considered notable and is thus in the main namespace. WP:SMALLDETAILS prevails here. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 20:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Formal science. Nominally no consensus, but there's no status quo keep option to default to, thus defaulting to the frontrunner retarget suggestion instead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 11:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MathematicsAndStatistics → Mathematics and statistics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Mathematics and Statistics → Mathematics and statistics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Previously, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8#MathematicsAndStatistics was closed with a consensus to retarget to Mathematics and statistics. However, that page is no longer a valid target, having been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematics and statistics. Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 July 17. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The DRV discussion linked above veered from a pure review into a de novo deletion discussion, so I am not surprised to see it reopened here. However, I continue to feel we can delete this, per my endorsement rationale in the DRV: "My eyes are glazing over with the word salad of CSD categories, exceptions, etc being invoked above. So I am ignoring it in IAR fashion and merely asking - is this a plausibly useful redirect to have? I agree with people above [in the DRV] that it is not. I paused a bit at the rationale (I hope I have this right) that it's an old CamelCase redirect and we shouldn't delete those in case there are external links from 20+ years ago that use it that would break - but I've done a cursory google search for any such links and failed to find any. I also understand and accept Jclemens' and others' 'multiple reasonable editors are objecting so let's discuss rather than speedy' argument, so I wouldn't object to a 'Discuss at RFD' close [of the DRV, which is what happened], but I'd love for that to be in response to objections that go beyond process. Personally, happy to endorse [i.e., delete] and just move on." Martinp (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget MathematicsAndStatistics to Formal science, and tag with Template:R from CamelCase to preserve it as a blue link in projectspace pages about Wikipedia's history, where I've seen it appear at least once.—Alalch E. 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For a similar redirect see VisualArtsAndDesign which is arguably a worse case as there isn't a convenient higher order topic as a better target than Visual arts (design only intersects with visual arts, but isn't only about the visual) —Alalch E. 15:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And yeah, delete Mathematics and Statistics. —Alalch E. 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As mentioned at the DRV and alluded to by Alalch E., MathematicsAndStatistics was the seventh page created, and dates back to Wikipedia's first 24 hours even though the page's first edit is lost. Obviously there's going to be some cutoff where it's no longer reasonable to keep a page just because "hey, it's a really, really WP:OLDARTICLE", but #7 is probably below that limit. If we don't want to keep this in mainspace, then move it to Wikipedia:MathematicsAndStatistics or something similar; I have no preference as to which, nor any opinion on Mathematics and Statistics. —Cryptic 01:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there is not a suitable target for Mathematics and statistics then there is not a suitable target for these 2 redirects either. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and oppose moving to project namespace. For me the limit Cryptic describes is set at 1 - WP:UuU deserved to exist because it was the first page, and continuing that trend any further is an exercise in silliness (especially given that the history from January 2001 we are supposedly preserving hasn't even been imported) None of the targets suggested are really suitable - they are desperate measures to avoid the logical consequence of deletion that people (for reasons I don't quite follow) want to avoid. If there is no consensus to delete, then prefer Mathematical statistics as the least-worst target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • UuU was #11, four pages and about an hour and a quarter after this. —Cryptic 13:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant distinguishing factor of UuU is that it is the first edit that survived without needing to be manually re-imported. If HomePage were otherwise about to be deleted I could see retaining it somewhere in project space, but again see no point in continuing beyond that point - #7 doesn't seem special enough. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget MathematicsAndStatistics to Formal science, and neutral on deletion/retargeting Mathematics and Statistics – formal science seems like an okay target for a search term such as this, though I wouldn't object to Mathematics as a target either. I think any of the first 10 pages created should be kept (coincidentally, that's everything before UuU, which is another good cutoff in my opinion), so I'd say MathematicsAndStatistics should stay. These two pages also get views – it's in the double digit range per month for both pages. I think the ambiguity is enough to keep me neutral on the spaced version without it being one of the first creations. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mathematical statistics is also a good target. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Mathematics and delete: Note: I closed the 1st RfD and !voted restore at DRV. First is a They're both {{R with old history}}, last is WP:XY. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 19:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC) partially struck 18:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ClydeFranklin I’ll admit to not being that familiar with the rcat, but I believe the latter would also qualify as a {{R with old history}}, having been created at around the same time. A smart kitten (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • A smart kitten, you're right. "Old history" is considered before 2003. Changed my !vote. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Mathematics as I think that's just a standard good target. Do the same to Mathematics and statistics. J947 † ^edits 01:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Retarget? No consensus? This is the fourth discussion we've had on this page in as many months, after all! I was the instigator of this whole mess :')
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever happens to the targets, I would strongly oppose deletion of MathematicsAndStatistics. Retain as {{R from CamelCase}}. (As described in the rcat, These are kept as redirects to maintain edit history and to avoid breaking links that may have been made externally.) Given the age of Mathematics and Statistics, I would also say the same thing, and retaining as {{R with old history}}. As to potential targets, as mentioned, these could potentially include Mathematical statistics, Mathematics, Formal science, etc.; but to be honest I’m much more indifferent on the targets than on the fact that these redirects should be kept alive (so don’t take my comments on targeting as a barrier against any other consensus on a target that may be forming) - but there is definitely a plausible target for these redirects. Given the historical significance, however, I just do not want these to be deleted. A smart kitten (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't make sense to keep a camelcase redirect if the non-camelcase redirect doesn't exist: MathematicsAndStatistics is camelcase version of Mathematics and statistics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shhhnotsoloud sorry if i’m misunderstanding anything, but if this RfD closes with consensus to retarget, why can’t Mathematics and statistics be (re)created as a {{R avoided double redirect}}? (or ideally imo, undeleted and also tagged with {{t|R with history.) Best, A smart kitten (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't normally participate in procedural nominations that I've started as a result of DRV, but I'll chime in with my view on where we stand procedurally with respect to Mathematics and statistics. By the letter of WP:CSD#G4, a newly created redirect at Mathematics and statistics clearly does not qualify since it is not substantially identical to the disambiguation page that was deleted. A case could be made in the spirit of G4 that the AfD participants considered redirecting and decided not to, but I feel like the lack of an affirmative consensus to convert to a redirect is not the same as the existence of an affirmative consensus to delete such a redirect, so any newly created redirect would need to come to RfD rather than be speedied. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Late comment: If it helps the closer, I think my retargeting preference would be to Mathematical statistics per Utopes below. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 09:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Mathematical statistics. I concur with Cryptic in regards to MathematicsAndStatistics that even if it's not EXACTLY the first article created, it is still a part of that initial tiny batch of pages created by office.bomis.com, and to this end, I'd say that these first 10 pages created this way are especially significant due to this timing. Because of this, I think it is worth the effort in making these links work. In regards to a target, Mathematical statistics quite literally IS the combination of Mathematics and Statistics. Per WP:XY, it is possible to point to a page where both are being discussed, and mathematical statistics does appear to fit this, being the application of mathematics in statistics. I believe this target is logical enough that both of the discussed redirects could point here without any problems. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget MathematicsAndStatistics to Mathematics, it's a {{R from CamelCase}} that pointed to that target continuously for more than 23 years until it was changed barely two months ago, and the target it was changed to no longer exists. Delete the other per WP:XY and because its target no longer exists. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget both to Formal science. When I initially nominated these two redirects months ago, my initial concern was about the lack of a fitting target. Now I think that Formal science is a reasonably good target (though I won't complain about Mathematics or Mathematical statistics, or even Statistics, as a target.) But don't delete either! (By the way, this fiasco deserves to be commemorated in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Deletion wars.) Duckmather (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Mathematical statistics per Utopes as a logical target of what someone looking for mathematics and statistics might be looking to find. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to any of the options mentioned, preferably Formal science, and make a nice entry about this discussion at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Deletion wars as Duckmather has suggested. Renerpho (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep MathematicsAndStatistics. Retargeting is fine; I don't care where it points, just that it remain available. This is one of the CamelCase entries from the first few revisions of HomePage in 2001. Readers should be able to look it up and look back in its history from 2001. --Trovatore (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirby: Right Back At Ya! Guest Characters → Characters of the Kirby series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There are no guest characters for that anime mentioned in this list or anywhere else on Wikipedia. The page it was merged with has also since been deleted. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Eddy Burback → 12th Shorty Awards  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no logical target for this article. He received a sole nomination at the 12th Shorty Awards, but the connection with that topic ends there. I'm sure this topic will be notable enough for a full article one day, but for now I don't think a redirect is the best option. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Busy-signal equivalent (HTTP) → List of HTTP status codes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Huh? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: At best this is a 503, but I cannot see a whole lot of reputable sources using that terminology for it. If kept refine to 5xx server errors, but it should best be deleted as a novel synonym. TartarTorte 19:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - evidently some now-very-old technical sources did refer to HTTP status codes as busy signals or equivalent to a telephone busy signal. That didn't refer to any particular code (like 503) but to any response that did not serve the requested page. It seems to be harmless, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @TartarTorte. There is no mention of a busy-signal equivalent in the article itself either. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 06:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep per Ivanvector and WP:CHEAP. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 20:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ivanvector: I'm not personally aware of these references; do you have any citations? To me it doesn't really make sense to consider all status codes like a busy signal, other than perhaps in a layperson's description back at the genesis of the web. Absent specific evidence, I don't think this is a sufficiently common interpretation to warrant a redirect. isaacl (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found more than a few blogs and forums and so on, talking about it. Here's an explanatory page, for example: [7] - jc37 21:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That page documents what it calls the "busy signal pattern", though the text is more reminiscent of a use case scenario rather than a software design pattern (typically a design pattern would label specific actors and their specific interactions, in order to provide a common language for describing that solution). A service provided over HTTP is then used as an example. This isn't an example of "busy-signal equivalent" being used as a term to refer to all HTTP status codes, and I don't think having redirects for every cloud service implementing this scenario is useful. What are some of the other examples you have found? isaacl (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the article history, it originally stated, "An HTTP Busy-signal equivalent indicates a requested connection cannot be completed", and went on to list 500, 503, 403.9 and 404 as the relevant status codes. This was redirected without merging in 2005. Unless sources exist that could support a mention of the term/grouping being added, this should probably be deleted as original research. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Without an explanation of the term at the target, this will lead to further confusion (as the nominator demonstrated). -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. The consensus is strongly in favor of keeping the target of "WP:WRONG" as a longstanding redirect, which undoing would cause more harm than good. Opinions about the usefulness of "WP:Wrong" shift between keeping and weakly retargeting.

According to WhatLinksHere, the existence of WP:Wrong does not seem to block or inhibit the usage of WP:WRONG, as the former redirect of WP:Wrong has only received one linkage in the last 10 years, whereas usage of WP:WRONG is always intentional and sufficiently hits the correct location. Both targets have been argued in favor of, mainly in regards to keeping the status quos of either redirect. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wrong → Wikipedia:Correct  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wikipedia:WRONG → Wikipedia:The Wrong Version  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

WP:WRONG is a seperate redirect, and I think that it makes more sense, but I want to build consensus. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WRONG points eventually to m:The Wrong Version which is a piece of humour on the meta, lots of links from talk pages but a very different page to WP:correct which is a plea for everyone to consider policy rather than just their own opinions, with a rationale for doing this. WP:wrong is useful for linking in flowing text without needing to pipe, so I think both are useful. Andrewa (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I might be missing something or not thinking of something, but in my mind it would make more sense for all capitalisations of the same WP: shortcut word to point to the same target. If that isn’t the case, people that happen to (for example) type "WP:Wrong" instead of "WP:WRONG" (whether in a wikilink, the search bar, or in some other way) may be confused that it leads to a different place. Based on that, I think my !vote will be to weakly retarget WP:Wrong to WP:The Wrong Version: WP:Wrong has a very little amount of pageviews, and only one non-Rfd use as a wikilink on a talk page (from here); whereas WP:WRONG has a large number of wikilinks, a steady stream of pageviews, and has pointed at its current target since creation. To me, and given what I’ve said above, it would therefore create less potential for confusion to retarget WP:Wrong than to retarget WP:WRONG. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 08:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC) fixed pageviews link on 12:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To add to my !vote after the comment below by @RedPanda25, I am strongly opposed to retargeting WP:WRONG, due to the fact that it would break a lot of links, and cause confusion from editors who are used to it linking to Wikipedia:The Wrong Version (of which there may be a lot, judging by the pageviews). Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 12:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget WP:WRONG, so that both point to WP:Correct, with a hatnote in that article linking to the one on Meta. As mentioned above, it's more helpful for someone to be able to link WP:Wrong as in "this information isn't WP:wrong, it's just not verifiable". RedPanda25 18:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I’ve bundled WP:WRONG into this RfD because it could potentially be retargeted as a result of this RfD. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 12:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Target both to Wikipedia:The Wrong Version. Long long LONG standing target. Changing this breaks a lot of references and edit summaries. This has been a common rationale to note when reverting to a stable page version before protecting a page. Feel free to add a hotnote to the essay Wikipedia:Correct, if wanted. - jc37 21:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:WRONG, long standing redirect to a major topic of Wikipedia culture and used in logs per jc37, consider to undo ten-years old retarget of WP:Wrong. —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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