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 23:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Denetric Malope → Model (person)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

unmentioned in the target. seemingly part of a running gag of redirects of south african models created by people with oddly similar editing patterns, including adding links to them to their user pages. really starting to think an spi is due cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 22:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note: an article was created in its place by an ip editor, see the diff here. seems like some of the sources are reliable, but it seems equally, if not more promotional in nature. it also involved removing the rfd templates, which... there was just an spi about this exact thing, if this ip isn't a sock, i'll be surprised cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:28, 12 December 2024 (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 Turbocharger to reinstate the status quo ante. Opening an RM is the way to go. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 06:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear if this is a good target for this title. For the last two years, it had redirected to turbocharger until a recent edit. Turbo does seem like it could be a common word for something "fast". Natg 19 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy retarget back to turbocharger, reverting the bold IP retarget. Current redirect is WP:MALPLACED. If turbocharger is not the primary topic, this can be decided via a requested move. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the malplaced issue. But want to determine if it should be targeted to turbocharger as a primary redirect first. Natg 19 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I say speedy because at the moment, there are a lot of incoming links that are going to the dab page, presumably intended for turbocharger. Return to the status quo and then the primary topic can be revisited, either via RM (if there is no primary topic or something "Turbo (bar)" at the dab is primary) or RfD if something else at the dab warrants a primary redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Appears that all of these were fixed. (Special:WhatLinksHere/Turbo_(disambiguation)). Natg 19 (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, essentially per nom. it's a word !! cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 22:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget per Mdewman6. RM seems like the proper venue here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue per the others and WP:MISPLACED. I would, however, support such a move. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  RM would be a better venue but if there is a consensus to keep pointing at the DAB the DAB would be moved per MALPLACED. Given this discussion is now open its probably best to discuss here just like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 4#Amadeus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget back to turbocharger as WP:PTOPIC. No preference for speedy or not speedy action on this. If I was to !vote on this in an RM context, I would not !vote to move it away from turbocharger, again, as this looks like a clear primary topic issue. A hatnote should be enough to get people to the DAB. Fieari (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2024 (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. The existing Lisina (disambiguation) to be moved to the base title Lisina. Jay 💬 08:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lisina → Yekaterina Lisina  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This target was unilaterally changed today by Duckmather. It previously targeted the article that Duckmather has renamed Lisina (Raška). While I would agree that this village stub isn't a good WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I don't think the person is either. In my opinion the disambiguation page (which needs to be fixed up regardless after this is decided) should live at the base name. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyrael: I had thought about moving the dab too, but then I looked at the pageview data and saw that Yekaterina Lisina came up on top. Duckmather (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does have significantly more views than the other entries, but that's not the only consideration for primary topic. I'm probably reading this wrong as I'm not used to the tool, but I think this indicates that almost no traffic to the page for Yekaterina Lisina is coming from the disambiguation page, so readers are not expecting to find her at just "Lisina". -- Fyrael (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate move the disambiguation page to tbe base name -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Lisina (disambiguation) to base name as no clear primary topic for the single word. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2024 (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 speedy keep. Wrong venue. Please take this to AfD, which is where disambiguation pages get nominated for deletion or redirection. It would make more sense for them to be discussed at RfD, in my opinion, but this is the long-term status quo. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 00:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Frank Mrvan → [[:]]  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

(Currently a disambiguation page with 2 entries) I believe that Frank J. Mrvan is the WP:PTOPIC for this name. According to clickstream, all 100% (in Sept) & 88% (in Oct) of outgoing clicks from the dab went to Frank J. Mrvan. By pageviews, Frank J. Mrvan was consistently above his father gaining around 88% of 2-way views in the past 2 years. Lastly, being a US congressman, he has greater long-term significance than his father who is a retired state senator. Therefore, dab is not required and it should be redirected to PTOPIC with a hatnote about his father. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retarget to Frank J. Mrvan per nom; Frank J. is the primary topic; hatnote for the father and no dab. Andre🚐 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Son is in US Congress, father is a state legislator. PRIMARYTOPIC makes sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait, what's this doing here in rfd? i thought dabs went to afd cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:ONEOTHER dabs are on the thin line separating Dabs from Redirects than they are any closer to Articles. Far more PTOPIC questions arise here, which gives the participants more expertise on the matter. AFD participants are more likely to be good at determining GNG, HOAX, etc. but probably not so much about PTOPIC. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on a mechanical level though, dabs just aren't redirects. this resulted in a malformed nom, seeing as there's no target here cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about AfD but it made no sense to me as dabs are very different from articles. Also, the explicit request here is to turn it into a redirect, so it may not be best to nominate at articles for deletion. About the malformed nomination, I think these edge cases should be accommodated. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eh, i gotta admit that i do kinda disagree with afd being called "articles for deletion". with the amount of "merge" and "blar" outcomes, it really should just be "articles for discussion" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same view, unfortunately most requests to rename it to that assume way too many things need to be combined with it, and as such we have Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Rename_AFD. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 23:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... yeah, fair, i'd hate dealing with a venue specifically geared towards multiple different outcomes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:28, 9 December 2024 (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. Legoktm (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hatnote → Wikipedia:Hatnote  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete, crossnamespace redirect from (article) to project page. It appears that the word "hatnote" was invented specifically for Wikipedia, there are no other stuff with that word and the internet underlined that word as a misspelling. Cyber the tiger (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:XNR redirect into the pipeworking. Non-readership content. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per... well... nom. Indeed the word "hatnote" was invented specifically for Wikipedia and there are no other stuff with that word. Since I find it likely that new editors will wonder what the uses of them are, there isn't an encyclopedic target we have for this, and this redirect is unambiguous, I'm sure it's fine. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A reader will never encounter the word hatnote normally, they will just see hatnotes, without knowing what Wikipedia calls the internally. Just as any part of the internals of Wikipedia are not usually known by the readership, nor need to be known by the readership. If they wantt to find out, then they will probably be part of the contributor editorship, which is not what redirects in articlespace are for. WP:HATNOTE already exists for us, the editorship. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. However, I do feel pageviews should be taken into account here, given that it's averaging around 2 per day. Whether it's bored experienced editors, the readers/newbies being curious, or from the multiple pages it's linked to is beyond me, but the redirect is clearly seeing some use (would also like to note that this is linked in Hat (disambiguation), which has had 206 views in the past 30 days). I must also note that this XNR has been around since 2008. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 22:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, helpful, apparently unambiguous. —Kusma (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This was RfDed 3 times before, most recently at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_17#Hatnote. I supported deletion in the last two of those, and nothing I've seen since has changed my position, so delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Listen to Wikipedia with hatnote is unironically the best solution here in my opinion. Listen to Wikipedia is not at all an obscure article, receiving 500 pageviews a month, so the reader looking for that with this search term is plausible. An injoke-y hatnote about hatnotes is more acceptable when, as previously identified, LtW is firmly inside the wikirealm. Second choice disambiguate. And bundle in Hat note and Hatnotes on the relist, please. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggested target no longer mentions it, as I've removed it as unsourced (not just unsourced, but none of the sources actually refer to it with this name). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. It's certainly not 100% unambiguous, but with that clarification it's near enough, so keep (with the current hatnotes to headnote and hat notation). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to wikt:hatnote. Reader-focused target most related to what previous discussions considered the primary use. This has been brought to discussion several times now and a salty soft-redirect may also be warranted as a cost-saving measure. Editors should know to use namespaces (like WP:, HELP:, etc.) for linking or searches. Second preference is retargeting to Listen to Wikipedia per above and previous talks. ― Synpath 02:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete 100% unambiguous XNRs. Mach61 00:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My history will show I usually strongly dislike WP:XNRs, but this one really is completely unambiguously not associated with anything but us, and so our internal pages actually provide the same kind of information that someone would be looking for in mainspace in this case. So I think this is a valid exception to the general rule. Fieari (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful and unambiguous. I'm not seeing any strong reasons for deleting this redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per mwwv, J947 and Fieari. Disagree that this Wikipedia term is non-readership content. Search for this term in article namespace and you will find several hits, mainly category Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page, category Articles with redirect hatnotes impacted by RfD. Readers use the search functionality and could encounter meta terms such as these. Readers could stumble upon articles that are nominated for deletion, such as Droideka (disambiguation), where the rationale for WP:ONEOTHER mentions "hatnote", although fair to say it is the PRODder's (editor not reader) jargon which is exposed to the reader. Jay 💬 17:06, 21 December 2024 (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) 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Camera (conventional) → Camera#Photographic camera  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

no info on what makes a camera conventional or unconvential in the target, results for this and similar terms only gave me cameras you can feasibly hold with one hand cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also the previous discussion, which resulted in refining to the target section, which no longer exist. results seem to have been different back then too. would use the oldrfdlist template, but the visual editor doesn't like it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a "conventional camera" used to mean a 'photographic film visible light still camera', a 'traditional camera' ; something like a 35mm SLR, 24mm APS RF, 16mm RF, or a Kodak Brownie, etc. If we take that meaning, then it is a still camera used in analog photography; so perhaps retarget to analog photography? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – It's not used, and is only there because a user once moved Camera to Camera (conventional) and I moved it back. I don't think "conventional" has any interpretable meaning there any more. Does it mean a camera that takes glass plates? A camera that takes film? A photographic still camera? A cell phone camera with only one lens? Conventions have changed a lot. According to Google's AI summary, "A conventional camera is a camera that captures blurred versions of a scene away from the plane of focus. When choosing a conventional camera, you can consider things like: Sensor type: CCD, DMOS, ICCD, SIT, or ISIT ... Frame rate and resolution: 24, 25, 30, 60, or 90", so it's not film, not still, not analog, but has a focusable lens. Book hits suggest that "conventional" is used to distinguish cameras that don't have whatever novel feature is being discussed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My initial thought was also to retarget to analog photography, as that's what "conventional camera" means in my head, but the arguments from Dicklyon above have convinced me that this is an ambiguous term unworthy of a DAB page for being, basically, arbitrary in scope. Fieari (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2024 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Main Pag → Main Page  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I personally think this is an implausible typo, as no one would perfectly type out the entire page name only to then forget the last "e" (I only found this in the first place because I was bored)

Even though there was history since 2011, it was always a redirect Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am aware that there was an RfD mentioning this redirect from 2019: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_23#Targeting_the_Main_Page

However, consensus can change Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per page views that make it look reasonably common. —Kusma (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and write articles when you are bored. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  I don't have the skills to make a article tho Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Keep Perfectly reasonable typo to make. I often do that sort of thing all the time when I'm typing quickly then hit enter, I occasionally miss out the last character. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be a reasonable typo, not out of the question to miss the last character, especially from the page view counter linked above. Procyon117 (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible typo with tens of hits daily and no ambiguity in the target. Modest Genius ^talk 17:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Kee per everyon else. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Best keep vote ever? Schwede66 03:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as yet another typo, no more deserving of a redirect than any other. This one is especially bad due to the special nature of "Main Page". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More deserving of a redirect than almost any other title. There are 56,000 redirects tagged as {{R from misspelling}}, and at 800 pageviews a month this might just be the most helpful of them. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, many (relatively) page views per day. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2024 (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 Procedural close. Page is no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mackenziidae → Mackenzia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not monotypic: Paramackenzia exists. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IC1101-Capinatator: The standard is to simply change Mackenziidae to a family article from a redirect, discussion not needed.--Kevmin § 15:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:14, 10 December 2024 (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. Legoktm (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikiemdia → Wikimedia Foundation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible typo Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. two-letter swaps early on in a title (or in a short title) are generally considered plausible, unless that also makes them possible tyops of other things. it's why wikiepdia is plausible, but not list of characters in the kingdom hearts serise, for example cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't consider that when I made this redirect. Bornacheck (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mediawiki search function does the work for us Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirect for Wikiepdia originates from the article for Typosquatting. Since that exists on the wiki, and it could be typed out by a human by accident when putting Wikiepdia in their address bar, why not Wikiemdia? Bornacheck (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If i put baked benas in MediaWiki search, it will correct me, but if i put /wiki/Baked_benas into MediaWiki, nope Bornacheck (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Again, not implausible. CheeseyHead (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plausible tyop. Fieari (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are billions of possible letter transpositions of article titles (trillions if you include other redirects). What makes this one so special? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not plausible enough for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this recently created misspelling per IP. Jay 💬 10:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: potentially helpful, and not harmful. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:24, 28 December 2024 (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. Jay 💬 08:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite AV media → Template:Cite AV media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

One of the many mainspace redirects that link to citation templates created by the same user. He has created many of them and I'm not in the mood for bundling so I might as well nominate one and see how that plays out. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:XNR to the pipeworking, not even close to readership content -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Is no different than Cite web which was kept several times. I don't think either should exist, but there's no reason for one but not the other. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was discussed in 2012, time to revisit it and get it deleted -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE #Cite web was nominated later today -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE It was closed as "no consensus to delete", which is elaborated on below. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while many results are for wikis many aren't so its not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The major CS1|2 templates should be frictionless reaching the documentation, anything we can to help editors figure out how to find and use these tempalates overrides any minor guideline technicality. Nobody has presented a practical reason why this redirect would be a hindrance, but there are strong arguments why it's useful to keep. Also I'm concerned by the sheer volume of RfDs by an infinity banned sock, which are then followed up by a single IP editor voting/arguing in support of the nom. -- GreenC 16:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an unnecessary WP:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There really is no reason to have a redirect from mainspace to a template. Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per GreenC. The Cite web RfD was once again closed as "no consensus" "no consensus to delete". I think it's practical to have these as they could improve sourcing without much downside. It's also a hassle to type in "Template:" each time, and I can never remember if the shortcut is "tm:", "tp:" or "tl:". (But I think "tl:" might be Tuvalan Tagalog Wikipedia, as I've made that mistake several times before). BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is still not something any reader would want. Thus it should not exist in article-space. Article-space is WP:NOT a how-to guide to write articles on Wikipedia. The template page is most definitely a how-to guide to using the template, as it contains documentation . -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some readers are current or future editors, and even if they're not, seeing a search suggestion for "Cite (anything)" is not likely to discombobulate them. And even if they accidentally click on it there's always the back button. AV media is itself just a redirect to Audiovisual, and "Cite AV media" is not even a search suggestion in that case. You can even type "cite " (with a space) without any CNRs showing up. (Just to emphasise GreenC's point that it doesn't appear to be a hindrance.) BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other RfD closure seems inappropriate, without any relists, as "no consensus". Without relists, that seems very odd -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked CFA about that, and they wrote I closed it as "no consensus to delete", which is not the same as a general "no consensus" close. I was originally going to close as keep, but I felt that this was a better representation of the arguments presented, pointing to the fact that deletion — what the nominator was looking for — was very unlikely to happen (see WP:SNOW). Common practice is generally to delete non-Wikipedia-specific cross-namespace redirects from mainspace, so I weighted the IAR keep votes saying that they find it personally useful slightly less than I might've normally. Relisting may well have balanced out the numbers, but a consensus to delete was clearly not going to emerge so there was no point in keeping it open. I wasn't saying there was no consensus at all in the discussion, just that consensus for deletion was unlikely to happen. Quoted User:CFA - BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 11:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not a necessary (or even widely-used) xnr, templates generally aren't something readers will want to see. if they want to get into editing and templates, they can learn about namespaces when they get there cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing/unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. This is not a useful way to help users to find templates. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure I'd encourage creation of more without discussion, but is useful, not harmful, and has been around more than a year. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  i'd consider leading readers to content they wouldn't be expecting (in this case, a whole other namespace) to fall within at least one definition of "harm" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:12, 10 December 2024 (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 Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Articles. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Longest Wikipedia Article → Special:LongPages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wikipedia:Longest Wikipedia article → Special:LongPages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Articles so this stops being an invalid soft redirect to a special page and stops sticking out as technically R2-eligible. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting a previous discussion on one of these redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 4#Longest Wikipedia Article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep #2 but delete #1. I've read the 2012 RfD but time has moved on. If there's nothing in mainspace about the subject, there's no good reason for a cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget both per nom. Yes it is a cross-namespace redirect, but it got over 6000 page views in last months. The proposed target leads readers to what they want. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 11:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both per nom, better target that provides some context. Target is reasonable also from mainspace. —Kusma (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget both to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Articles per nom. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget and would have been happy for nom to just do this without a discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Weak retarget given the article deals with former long pages and not just the current which links the current special page at the top. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Articles. I was going to close this discussion but Longest Wikipedia Article is fully protected because of a now blocked bot in 2012. That protection should probably also be removed. Skynxnex (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed the protection. Jay 💬 10:25, 17 December 2024 (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 Template:Promotion inline. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Puffery inline → Template:Peacock inline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

{{Puffery}} now redirects to {{Promotional}}, so this should go to {{Promotional inline}}, for consistency. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:45, 9 December 2024 (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. There was minimal participation, and no participation after two relists and waiting an additional week. The discussion did bring up a source that connects the redirect term to the target. Jay 💬 08:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Moseley tea service → Earl Grey tea#Alcoholic preparations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

unmentioned. the section it targets to mentioned it as a type of cocktail named after moseley, but it's currently gone, so... cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: We could change the target to just Earl Grey tea. I'm finding a smattering of recipes and travel guide references to this drink that confirm that it exists and uses Earl Grey as a primary ingredient. It's a plausible search term that doesn't warrant an article. It could conceivably receive a mention in the Earl Grey tea article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  nice, got anything reliable for a quick mention? google was being a bit of a meanie so it only gave me reddit cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cogsan: Not the most ideal source, but page 56 of this trade magazine looks suitable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Term has not yet received mention at the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:10, 9 December 2024 (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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 09:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Syrian Republic (1946–1963) (disambiguation) → Syria (disambiguation)#In modern Middle East  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Syrian Republic (1946-1963) (disambiguation) → Syria (disambiguation)#In modern Middle East  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete, the piling up of parentheses. Cuvaj (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2024 (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 💬 09:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not ableist, I have autistic friends → I'm not racist, I have black friends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unmentioned synonym. As prior consensus shows for this kinda stuff, delete. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not a deletionist, i've made plenty of keep votes. it just... happens that i happen to want this specific redirect deleted. per nom, that is, not for any personal reason cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good point this has nothing to do with the target delete. Sorry for making a pointless redirect Anthony2106 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original creator's rationale: "same but with autism, probably won't get approved just trying to see if related sentences should have redirects, maybe to help with searching". If there is prior consensus opposing this per nom, no reason to keep. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While a keyword search using Google isn't a perfect way to gauge how noteworthy or in use a string of characters is, in this case it suggests that the phrase isn't in use, with most of the hits on the first page being from this very redirect and discussion thread. Moreover, while clearly a riff on the target, it doesn't clearly refer to or have to do with the target. (We don't redirect "Asian lives matter" to "Black lives matter", after all.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:00, 11 December 2024 (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. I've added a reference. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Primal Carnage: Evolution → Primal Carnage: Extinction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Evolution is not an alternative subtitle of Extinction, as this redirect implies, but rather an entirely different game in this series. I'm choosing to vote Delete unless we have better info on Evolution Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mention was added to the target but it was at the lead only. I have copied it to the #Development_and_release section and tagged with a {{citation needed}}. Jay 💬 09:38, 16 December 2024 (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 speedy deleted as r3. (non-admin closure) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "james s Welch jr" → James S. Welch Jr.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A) the subject is not usually referred to in quotes and B) even without the quotes this is a very implausible and unusual captialization Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete, I should nominated it when I performed the page move. AriTheHorse^{Talk to me!} 12:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I'm going to nominate it fro CSD.AriTheHorse^{Talk to me!} 15:23, 9 December 2024 (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 Speedy deleted by Pppery. (non-admin closure) Regards, SONIC678 05:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• National parks and monuments → List of areas in the United States National Park System  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• National Parks and Monuments (table) → List of areas in the United States National Park System  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

National parks and national monuments are distinct topics (WP:XY) and not specific to the United States. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently created this redirect in 2005 and I am *delighted* to see that has been obsoleted by Wikipedia's growth in the intervening years. Delete! jengod (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2024 (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).