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:Open letters. Snow close. There is no point dragging this out. I have created the dab page. – robertsky (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC) – robertsky (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:OPENLETTER → Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There have been multiple open letters on Wikipedia (e.g. 1), and there likely will be others in the future long after this controversy passes, so it doesn't make much sense for this shortcut to go to this particular one. Sdkb ^talk 21:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. E_F⁵ 21:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disambiguate per below I'm not familiar on how redirect discussions work, but I'd suggest changing the shortcut from WP:OPENLETTER to WP:OPENLETTER2024 for this specific open letter or something similar.❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:2024OPENLETTER used instead. Disambiguate per comments below. CNC (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 2024OPENLETTER and OPENLETTER2024 both now exist, and those two should suffice. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not dabify? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per nominator and all the "delete" comments. This isn't the article space; a disambiguation page would be proper here (or retargeting this to a disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that disambiguate is the best course of action. It make be better structured as a list rather than a formal WP:DAB page, but a page which hosts a list of open letters would be beneficial and this would be a natural shortcut. (Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter is another such letter.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate as there were, are, and will be more in the future. Tavantius (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate — This is not the first open letter to WMF nor will it be the last. Disambiguation seems to be the most reasonable course of action. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate, obviously. Paradoctor (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per above. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 22:15, 8 November 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. ✗plicit 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Waliugi → Waluigi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plausible misspelling, simple transposition BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a misspelling, but a typo, and typos shouldn't have redirects -- letter transpositions can occur in any word in any position, and there's no particular reason to have this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the assumption that everyone knows the correct spelling of Waluigi, a fictional video game character who's name is based off a non-English first name, is a bit of a stretch BugGhost🦗👻 00:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned immediately below, there is no phonetic explanation for this misspelling. It's much more likely a typo, and I find a comparable number of google hits for other transpositions, such as "waluiig" and "wauligi". I'm sure you could do the same for just about any word, but that doesn't mean we should keep such redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the pronunciation becomes way different, and the placement of the l and i (which is to say not glued together) is pretty easy to notice, so i'm not really feeling this one cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per IP. There is no plausible phonetic explanation. Unlikely misspelling, each are different from typos. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, especially considering that Liugi doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. waaaa cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:52, 8 November 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. ✗plicit 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. possibly also ambiguous with county cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per cogsan, ambiguous BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per cogsan, ambiguous with "county" by keysmash typo with adjacent key addition, and "country" with adjacent character transposition, both common forms of typo classes -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:45, 8 November 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 and tag as an {{R from avoided double redirect}}. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reccomend → Recommendation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ok this misspelling has like two errors. I don't think that's very plausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plausible misspelling, common enough to have its own wikitionary page BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should not be promoting misspellings with multiple errors, such as the similar "ocassion", another misspelling with one "c" too many and one too few of the following consonant. Steel1943 (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where are we "promoting" it? It's a redirect, not an article title BugGhost🦗👻 08:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems plausible to me, as it's one of those words where a reader could be asking themselves "is it double c or double m?". --Joy (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and mark as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Recommend. This is a very common, unambiguous spelling error (indeed one I've made myself more than once), the redirect is not causing any harm but does provide value. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible misspelling, per above. We also list "recommend" at Commonly misspelled English words, with a similar misspelling with two "c"s. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:45, 11 November 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gardern → Garden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plausible phonetic misspelling BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a plausible phonetic misspelling as claimed above. A very small number of google hits, the majority of which seem to be some weird spammy automatically generated fake storefront stuff. The rest are more likely typos. Creator has a long history of making dubious redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as {{r from misspelling}}: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=gardern&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1 Paradoctor (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a very plausible phonetic misspelling of rhotic accent pronunciations. While many of the google hits are shopping sites, they are not all the same one, showing evidence of quite widespread use. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 8 November 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. ✗plicit 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Monterrey La Raza (current) → Monterrey La Raza (2007–2010)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Outdated title. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. This is the former title of the page and may have been accurate from when it was created (in 2006, interestingly, when there was talk of this team being created) to when the team folded in 2010, but it's still an outdated one. Regardless, for some reason, the redirect still seems to be getting a surprisingly high number of pageviews (like 61 last year and 79 this year). Regards, SONIC678 06:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was still linked to a few pages, but I updated those redirects. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:00, 9 November 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. ✗plicit 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Was considering nominating this one, wasn't 100% about it, but since it's here, let's get this done. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIMRED → Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling created due to an incoming link that probably should have just been corrected rather than having this redirect created. Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found it and fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:41, 7 November 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 resolved. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Show Business (TV series) → Noh Hee-kyung#TV series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target page. Aidillia^(talk) 05:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, as the creator of the redirect page has added it on target with a secondary reliable source. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The RfD initiator has removed the RfD template from the redirect, probably indicating their willingness to withdraw this nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:02, 8 November 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 withdrawn per [1]. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Love Me (TV series) → List of South Korean television series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target page. Reports only mentioned that it is an adaptation of Swedish drama of the same name and actors were offered a role but no official confirmation. Also no news that neither production nor principal photography started. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the creator has now switched the target to Lee Si-woo (actor)#Television series where there is a mention of the series with a reference. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's also Love Me (Australian TV series), which has existed for far longer than this redirect. Not voting yet, but this might be worth considering. Regards, SONIC678 16:31, 7 November 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 delete. asilvering (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Picture turorial → Help:Pictures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling of "turorial". Fix here should have been to correct the link (or left it standing incorrect) rather than creating this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have made the correction.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:11, 7 November 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. (non-admin closure) Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's time to d-d-d-d-duel → Yu-Gi-Oh!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no mention of "d-d" at the target article. Per the RCATs, this is apparently a related meme quotation, yet does not appear anywhere as written within the article. People looking for Yu-Gi-Oh! can reach the subject by typing Yugioh. Hyphenating between all the d's, just to reach an undiscussed meme subject, does not seem particularly useful or helpful here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Demonstrably helpful, give the steady daily usage count on the stats page, just in the past month. Unambiguous target. WP:CHEAP. Don't break people's workflow just for the sake of tidyness. Fieari (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful to whom exactly? Personally, I search for a meme expecting information about a meme. 90% of people familiar with the meme know it's from Yu-Gi-Oh (or seems to be that way from [2], where it is discussed on KnowYourMeme). At the very least, readers expect to read about the thing they searched about. So readers get here thinking "oh so the meme is discussed on this page, great!" One then spends the next 50 thousand bytes searching and searching and nope, zero context, zero benefit. We don't need a redirect for "it's time to d-d-d-d-duel" if all it's going to imply is "this term is synonymous with the entire concept of the Yu-Gi-Oh! general topic article, with no specific section or anchor implied."

Memes are novel. I'm not surprised that people WANT to learn about it here, yet still not useful as a 1-to-1 redirect as it currently leaves people lost on a page without any information for their meme search term, and no mention of "meme" at Yu-Gi-Oh. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. This isn't simply a meme-- it's a direct quotation from the original opening sequence for the English dub of this specific anime, with most meme-ification of this quote simply extending the "d-d-d-d-d-d" stuttery part, or otherwise playing around with it and the Yu-Gi-Oh anime's characters in general. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's a meme then. I'm well aware of the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence in question, and the associated meme and its derivations. It's clearly not a "direct quotation", else this text (hyphens and all) would appear in the episode transcript here: [3]. Regardless, thank you for suggesting a more-related option. But it's still an unmentioned meme. How does this have any bearing on the likelihood of typing a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by "uel"? And all to end up at an article for the series where the meme being sought isn't mentioned, nor any of the meme-spellings? Even in the anime and the video you linked, they stutter like 9 times, so even that aspect isn't accurate within this redirect, and none of It's time to duel, It's time to d-duel, It's time to d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-duel (is nommed), It's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel exist, or It's time to dduel, It's time to ddduel, It's time to dddduel, or It's time to ddddduel for that matter. Past precedent has indicated that random hyphens inserted into words is not useful, obfuscates the terms that are actually spoken, and makes searches impractical. And at least for these precedent discussions, they were for quotes which appeared at the target, iirc (in an unmodified/natural state that is, I think). The quote is officially "it's time to duel". Anything beyond that, makes it a meme/meme version. Someone committing to the 5 ds/4 hyphens combination is deliberately typing in a meme into the search engine, so if maintained, the content should reflect that. Neither the real version nor any of the meme variations are covered at the new suggested target either, and Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!, btw. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for finding this hyphens, Hyphenation Expert; imo you have definitely earned the title of "expert in hyphenation" for this one 😌 lol.

  For that redirect, the title stutters 8 times, which that number happens to have a bit more basis in reality, compared to this one which stutters 4. (Side note, the edit summary for that redirect is... certainly interesting...). I'm hesitant to bundle these though, as the redirect you found here at least sounds a bit closer to what occurs in the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence, with the ~correct amount of 8 or 9 ds, so slightly more plausible. There may be a case for deletion there (no other du-du-dus exist), but I think the smaller scope and just one redirect here is fine for now. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As mentioned by Fieari, pageviews in the last (recorded) decade are close to ~2000. This year itself, the pageviews are close to ~500. I used the backlink checker to see if we have a permanent link somewhere, but found only edwardbetts.com/find_link/Wikipedia_community which lists the current RfD. There was a 4-year old reddit discussion asking for the number of Ds, and there was no conclusion, participants counted 7, and 8 and 9, but I agree 4 is easier to type, but so would 3 or 2, but people have been using 4 too. That discussion was in December 2020, although our pageview spike happened in November 2020. Searching for the term with 4 Ds on Google brings up several videos and articles. Ultimately, we don't have a redirect or mention of the non-stuttered phrase It's time to duel. We also don't know if the possible hundreds of readers reaching the redirect, are using the English phrase to reach the article on the series/franchise. Jay 💬 17:18, 20 November 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 Cotangent complex#Flat descent. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Conerve → Nerve complex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "conerve" at the target article. Possibly a portmanteau of "complex nerve"? But without a definition, is confusing. I'm getting mixed results when I type in "conerve" in search engines, which say something about a "conerve capsule"(?) (but are generally about being one letter off of "conserve"). In any case, without a mention, there is currently nothing suitable for incoming readers using this search term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cotangent_complex#Flat_descent, where it is briefly discussed. It would be good for the Nerve complex article to describe conerves and associated cosimplicial complexes. But until that happens, the bit in Cotangent_complex is probably our best target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:17, 7 November 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. After two relists, we do not appear to be cohering around a clear consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Planet Three → Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 3rd planet → Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Third planet → Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 3rd Planet → Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 1st planet → Mercury (planet)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 2nd planet → Venus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 4th planet → Mars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Earth is, unsurprisingly, not the only "planet three". This is a highly ambiguous and fairly implausible search term. Ditto for the rest. Delete. Cremastra (u — c) 01:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment these are probably trying to complement the names used for outer planets and theorized planets. (Planet Nine / Planet Ten / Planet X / Planet V ... ) but the phrase "3rd planet from the Sun" and "Sol III" are commonly used in certain circles to refer to the Earth... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My initial thought was to keep as a primary topic. But Google searches show that, in fact, Earth is not the primary topic for any of these phrases. I receive mainly hits for various non-notable businesses. As such, I agree with the nominator that this is highly ambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note to closer: this !vote applies to the redirects bundled by Cremastra after I made the original comment as well. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the first one, keep the three others, there is no ambiguity, except in the first one.

21 Andromedae (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@21.Andromedae Why is only first one ambiguous? Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet three isn't the same as 3rd planet, and nobody calls Earth as planet three. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I have bundled "1st planet", "2nd planet", and "4th planet" in this discussion. Cremastra (u — c) 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Other planetary systems do exist, but none is so ingrained into popular knowledge as ours so that random people would be able to name all of its planets, and in order to boot. Right now and for a very long time in the future, "first", "second", "third" and "fourth" planet, said in isolation, will always mean implicitly "...of the Solar System". Cambalachero (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the ordinal ones per Cambalachero. I'm unsure about Planet Three. Looking around there's definitely other uses for this term. There is a publisher (for example redlinked on Mad About Boys), an internet(?) company mentioned on .cx, and probably most notably Arthur C. Clarke's "Report on Planet Three And Other Speculations". In that case it clearly is referring to the Earth. Given it is only a partial title match and given there's no actual articles about any of these things I very weakly lean keep but don't have a strong objection to deletion or targeting somewhere else. A7V2 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. It is not inherently obvious that a reader is intending to determine the order from the Sun. Maybe they are looking for an estimated time when each planet was actually created, or some other chronological construct. And even then, why this solar system? Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, mercury was not the first planet to exist. Earth was the first planet to be inhabited by humans. The gauge for determining a scale of "what planet is first" is WP:OR and these descriptions do not seem to be mentioned as "first planet" at the target articles of Mercury (planet) and etc, without the necessary context of "first planet away from the sun". Without the context, this is ambiguous. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Last time I checked we're in this solar system so many of those planets are likely to be primary for us even if other planets exist in other solar systems but these as noted may be too ambiguous even in our solar system. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to list of planets (or Solar System if we are going by heliocentric PoVs). Web-julio (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The solar system planets are the primary topics vis-à-vis Planet X, Planet Nine, 3rd Rock, etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix and others. Planet One redirects to Mercury and Planet Five redirects to the dab Fifth planet. The nomination is not clear as to how this is ambiguous. If there is ambiguity, a dab similar to Fifth planet may be created. The delete (or retarget) votes did not sway me. Jay 💬 11:30, 3 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. The deciding issue here was lack of mention. If this had been solely a question of PTOPIC status, I would have been inclined to close as keep. If a mention is added to the article (or elsewhere), it would be appropriate to recreate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Her Royal Hotness → Pippa Middleton  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This designation is not mentioned at the subject. Redirect is confusing, misleading, ambiguous and undiscussed. People looking for this term are looking for encyclopedic coverage of such a buzzword "her royal hotness", which is not currently found at the page for Pippa Middleton nor anywhere on Wikipedia. This is a novel term, and hasn't ever been mentioned at the subject's article, since the last bout in 2020. No coverage of the phrase "her royal hotness" anywhere on Wikipedia, so this WP:Surprising non-RS term should be removed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The are oh so many ladies (and dishes) with this nickname. The only one link in the first page of Google search that mentions the current target is actually this redirect. It is therefore grossly misleading. Викидим (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Created by a user now globally banned from all wikimedia projects. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Renerpho (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ambiguous target, and the term is insufficiently notable/encyclopedic for disambiguation. Fieari (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My !vote was previously based on personal experience of hearing this term generically applied to nearly any "hot girl", particularly those seen as "higher class", by peers. Google, on the other hand, makes it fairly clear that this is attested to refer to this one person, so extremely consistently it makes for an overwhelming WP:PTOPIC. No, it's not mentioned in the article, nor should it be, as the vast number of sources that use it so overwhelmingly often are not reliable... but redirects are not article content, and need not be held to the same sourcing or inclusion standards. This redirect will help users who encounter the term in the wild find out who is being referred to. Fieari (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a cursory web search [4][5][6] seems to show this 'Pippa Middleton' is the primary topic of "Her Royal Hotness" [7][8][9][10][11][12], even calling the actress who portrays her on The Crown as being cast as such. [13][14] -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not mentioned at the target, and apparently pretty ambiguous about whom it could refer to anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if WP:RSURPRISE applies, which it seems it currently does; in my experiences, if there's not a good reason to add a term to an article, it either doesn't apply or is some sort of combination of WP:NEO, WP:SEO and/or WP:OR, which we don't want here. Also, to respond to the struck vote above, if it's not mentioned, the redirect would continue to be a {{R without mention}}, which puts the redirect in a maintenance category prompting the redirect to eventually end up on RFD ... which is exactly what happened here, and there's no reason to repeat the same steps that were prompted by the same problem. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - searching for "her royal hotness" on various search engines returns many results for Pippa. Purposely omitting her from those results returns practically nothing: one novel by a not-well-known author, and a few non-notable shades of lipstick. Not really that ambiguous at all, and we're here to help readers find the information they're looking for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 7 November 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 consensus is the current target is inappropriate, and no better target has been identified * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Site-specific Comedy Opera → Improv Everywhere#Fake U2 Concert  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

According to the internet "site-specific theatre refers to a theatre performance which is staged in a non-traditional space". This needs to be re-targetted, but I'm unsure where. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - If you're being specific enough to type this entire phrase, I don't think you'd be WP:ASTONISHed to end up at this target. I'm not sure we have better. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, definitely do not keep but open to retargeting as necessary. No mention of "site-specific" or "opera" at the target article, so people searching for this term would be misled by the promise of content on this term that we don't have. No mention of "Site-specific Comedy Opera" anywhere on Wikipedia, so honestly this should probably just be deleted as the RfD default (no valuable history being lost), but OP seems to think there could be another target possibility. I can't think of one so I say delete for now. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant retarget if there is a good target. If not, then deletion would be my !vote. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 7 November 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Żwaniec → Zhvanets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This article exists at Polish Wikipedia - therefore, appears to be a translated name that's not significant to the target article. LR.127 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not a translated name, but a historical Polish name, as it was part of Poland for several centuries. The redirect is similar to many other towns, which were formerly part of Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania, Denmark, Germany, etc, but whose state affiliation has changed since, and there are articles in which the town is mentioned under its Polish name as a reference to the history of that period. Marcin 303 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Marcin 303. Redirect is clearly useful. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:54, 15 November 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 💬 11:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Manush Shah → Table tennis in India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No point in this redirect, there is no much coverage about him in this page. he is mentioned in some events. should be deleted until an actual article is made. Sports2021 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 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).